Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral disclosures: exact 2026 schedules for seven named states, labeled estimates elsewhere, nine states with no wage income tax, and the federal/FICA basis used. These accuracy caveats materially affect how an agent should present results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by a short usage sentence; every clause carries information. The long parenthetical listing states and tax methods is dense but earns its place, so only minor deduction for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does well by sketching the return content (state income tax, method label, gap to best). It doesn't specify ordering/format details or error behavior for invalid state codes, which the schema only partly covers.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and enums are documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the 2-10 state bound and the two tax years, adding no interpretation beyond the structured fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific operation (run the same gross pay through 2-10 states and rank by annual take-home), the tax years supported, and what is returned. It is clearly differentiable from the sibling calculate_take_home_pay because it is inherently multi-state and comparative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use it for relocation and remote-work offers,' giving a concrete decision context. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing at calculate_take_home_pay for single-state or non-comparison needs, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.