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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: overtime is paid at 1.5x and the `hour` unit blends base and overtime pay.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by critical calculation rules. Every sentence adds useful information with 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?

The annotations cover safety and the description covers core conversion behavior, but with 6 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, more detail is needed about schedule parameters and the return value. It is adequate for understanding the tool's purpose, but not fully sufficient for confident invocation across all inputs.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the unit values and mentions overtime hours, but it leaves daysPerWeek, hoursPerWeek, and weeksPerYear unexplained beyond the vague phrase 'stated schedule', and it does not clarify how those schedule parameters combine.

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 states a specific verb (Convert), resource (gross pay figure), and the full set of target units. It clearly distinguishes this pay-conversion utility from the job/company/resume siblings, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context ('for a stated schedule') and an explicit scope exclusion ('Gross pay only: no taxes, benefits or deductions'), which tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but no sibling performs pay conversion, so the practical guidance is strong.

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