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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable domain behavior: the +25%/+50% tiers and the 35h weekly threshold, plus the return shape. It does not disclose edge cases like rounding or partial hours, but for a pure calculator this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and formula, and is not verbose. The explicit return-field list is somewhat redundant given the output schema, and the list_bundles pointer is tangential, but overall it is efficient.

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 two-parameter calculator with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the necessary domain formula. The return values are already in the output schema, so their repetition is unnecessary but harmless. The only notable gap is lack of differentiation from the sibling calculate_overtime_fr.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description's threshold details relate to overtime_hours but do not add syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 French overtime pay') and includes the exact calculation rules, which clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool calculate_overtime_fr, leaving an agent to infer the distinction.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The reference to list_bundles points to related calculators but does not help an agent choose this tool over calculate_overtime_fr or others.

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