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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the return value ('gross overtime pay with 25%/50% premiums') but fails to disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or is read-only. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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?

The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It includes essential input and output information. The reference to list_bundles is marginally relevant but does not harm conciseness. Could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, inputs, and return value. However, it does not explain that overtime hours are calculated as actual_hours - base_hours (default 35), which is crucial for correct usage. This gap reduces completeness.

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 schema has 100% coverage, providing descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds 'Inputs: hourly rate, normal hours, overtime hours' but uses imprecise terminology that may confuse (e.g., 'overtime hours' vs schema's 'actual_hours'). It does not clarify the relationship between base_hours and actual_hours, reducing clarity.

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 clearly states that the tool computes French overtime pay for HR or employee verification. It uses a specific verb 'compute' and identifies the resource 'French overtime pay per labor code'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'calculate_overtime_pay_fr', which may cause confusion.

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 provides a clear use case ('HR or employee verification') and hints at related tools via 'See list_bundles for related finance-france calculators'. However, it does not explain when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

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