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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the default 40-hour, 52-week behavior, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence that leads with the core action and includes the most important default behavior. Every word earns its place; no filler or unnecessary detail.

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, single-purpose calculator, the description combined with full schema coverage and an output schema is complete. It explains the conversion types and defaults, and the agent can rely on schema for parameter details and output schema for return shape. No significant gaps.

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%, with each parameter clearly documented in the input schema. The description's mention of the default schedule adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. Thus baseline score 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?

Description clearly states it converts an annual salary to hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly equivalents, which is a specific verb+resource+output. It distinguishes this tool from sibling calculators by focusing on salary-to-time-period conversions. The default schedule note adds useful scope.

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 clear context: it is for converting annual salaries into various period-based equivalents, with a default 40-hour, 52-week schedule. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the intended use obvious. No misleading guidance is present.

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