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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds that it returns weekly/monthly/annual figures, but its claim of 'gross or net' support is not backed by any schema parameter, which is slightly misleading about capability.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the following sentences are short and mostly load-bearing (inputs, returns, related bundle pointer). Slightly redundant to restate inputs and returns that the schema and output schema already provide, but no filler.

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 three-parameter calculation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is essentially complete: it states the conversion, the inputs, and a related-resource pointer. The unresolved 'gross or net' wording is the only loose end.

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 hourly_rate, hours_per_week and weeks_per_year with defaults. The description restates the same three inputs without adding format or constraint detail, and the 'gross or net' mention maps to no parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Convert hourly wage to monthly and annual salary.' An agent can identify the transformation unambiguously. However, it does not name or distinguish itself from near siblings like calculate_hourly_cost or calculate_french_salary, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use for job comparisons' gives one implied use case, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to alternative salary tools. In a sibling list this large, the absence of routing guidance leaves selection partly to inference.

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