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 adds genuinely useful behavior context: the data provenance (Federal Register notices) and the exact set of figures returned, which effectively substitutes for the missing output schema.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and year span before the field list. Every listed item tells the agent what data is available, so the enumeration earns its place; the inline 2027 figures are slightly wasteful but help ground the scale of the values.

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 one-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the field inventory that the schema cannot, plus provenance and year coverage. An agent knows exactly what it will get back and for which years; nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% — the single year parameter already documents the 2023-2027 range, the maximum, and the 2027 default. The description restates the range and anchors it with 2027 example values but adds no new semantics such as fallback behavior for out-of-range years. 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 description names the specific resource (Social Security program amounts) and scope (2023-2027, sourced from Federal Register notices), and the enumerated data items make it clearly a reference-data lookup rather than a calculator, implicitly distinguishing it from the calculate_* siblings. It lacks an explicit verb (nothing says 'Returns'), but the resource is unmistakable.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for raw statutory figures while the calculate_* and get_*_cola siblings compute derived results, but no sentence states when to use this versus those alternatives or any prerequisite. No exclusions or routing hints are given.

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