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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the FLSA convention that hours past 40 are paid at 1.5×, and the formula for gross pay, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, well front-loaded with the core purpose and formula. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple and the schema plus description together cover inputs and calculation logic. The description could explicitly state the gross pay formula, but it is inferable from 'hourly × 1.5' and 'regular and overtime hours.' Given no output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, with each parameter well described. The description reinforces the meaning of regular and overtime hours but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already states. 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Compute') and resource (time-and-a-half overtime rate and gross pay), with the formula explicitly given. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like salary-to-hourly or other calculators, as it is uniquely positioned for overtime pay calculation.

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 a week with regular and overtime hours and follows US FLSA convention. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well implied and no confusing overlap with siblings exists.

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