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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only calculation with no side effects by stating 'Calculate' and listing output fields, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or state any rate limits or permissions needed. Partial behavioral context is given, but could be more explicit.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with the core purpose, a list of output fields, and a referral to related tools. Every part adds value, and there is no redundant information. Front-loaded with the verb and noun.

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 single parameter, clear output schema (implied), and the description covering purpose, output, and related tools, the description is fully adequate. No gaps remain for selection or invocation.

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% and the schema already describes 'gross_annual' as 'Gross annual salary in USD'. The description mentions it again in the output list but adds no new meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states it calculates US FICA taxes (Social Security + Medicare) for employee share in 2026. It uses a specific verb+resource ('Calculate US FICA taxes') and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the year and employee share, which sets it apart from other US tax calculators.

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 context that the tool is for employee share and 2026, and directs users to list_bundles for related 'finance-us' calculators, hinting at alternatives. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, such as not for employer share or other tax years.

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