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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond listing return fields, which are already represented by the output schema; it does not mention assumptions such as employee-only eligibility or zero-income behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The return-field list is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it is not excessive or distracting.

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 simple one-parameter deterministic calculator with a full input schema, output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers purpose and employee scope adequately. It could note exclusions or tie-ins to other Quebec payroll calculators, but nothing critical 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?

The only parameter, gross_annual_cad, is fully documented by the input schema at 100% coverage. The description does not add syntax, range, or interpretation beyond 'Gross annual earnings in CAD', so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: calculate Quebec Pension Plan (RRQ) contributions for an employee. The acronym expansion and employee scope distinguish it from siblings such as calculate_canada_ei and calculate_quebec_income_tax.

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?

The description implies usage via 'for employee' and points to list_bundles for related calculators, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus calculate_canada_ei, calculate_canada_combined_tax, or other Quebec payroll tools. Prerequisites or exclusions are unstated.

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