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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by naming the provenance (SSA's official annual notice in the Federal Register) and by disclosing a concrete figure set, which tells the agent this is authoritative published data rather than a computed estimate.

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?

One front-loaded sentence opens with the verb and the subject, then enumerates the returned figures. The dense numeric listing is long but each figure earns its place as expected return content, though it risks going stale and could have been condensed into field names.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return content and does so by listing the concrete returned figures. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 the single parameter already documents the valid range (2025-2027) with min/max bounds. The description restates the same year coverage without adding format or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The definition states a specific verb ('Returns') and a well-defined resource set (COLA, taxable maximum, earnings test limits, quarter of coverage, SGA, SSI), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools (get_contribution_limits, compare_years), leaving the differentiation to be inferred from content rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the year range ('Covers 2025, 2026 and 2027') signals when it is applicable, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of get_contribution_limits or compare_years. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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