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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that the result is an estimate and lists output fields, but it omits key behavioral context such as the limited state support and excluded deductions.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in a single clear sentence. The second sentence includes a redundant return field list given the existing output schema, but overall it is concise and well 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?

Adequate for a simple calculator: the schema covers all parameters, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists. The description identifies the estimate and outputs, though it lacks guidance on alternatives and excluded deductions.

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 parameters and enums are already fully documented. The description mentions federal/state withholding and FICA conceptually but adds no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 (estimate) and resource (US bi-weekly net paycheck after federal/state withholding and FICA). The scope is clear, but it does not name or contrast with sibling tools like calculate_us_federal_tax or calculate_us_fica.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The only pointer is 'See list_bundles for related finance-us calculators,' which is a vague discovery reference rather than a direct alternative comparison.

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