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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by explaining the 60%/300% clamp, city-specificity, and July reset. It also clarifies the consequences for high/low earners, which goes beyond the annotation's safety profile. No contradiction detected.

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 detailed but well-structured, front-loading the main question and then introducing the key misconception. Each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's model, and no extraneous information is present.

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 complexity of the tool and absence of an output schema, the description adequately defines what outputs to expect ('what leaves the payslip, and what the employer adds on top'). It also sets up the user's responsibility to supply rates/limits. Minor gaps like the exact formula aren't needed because schema already provides parameter roles.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already explained (e.g., 'gross' described as 'Used as the contribution base after clamping'). The tool description does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema, so 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 the tool computes both employee deductions and employer costs for China's 五险一金, with a specific verb ('comes out of') and resource ('China salary'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the contribution-base clamp rather than a simple percentage, making it distinct from tools like china_income_tax_salary.

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 explains the mechanism (contribution base vs. monthly pay) and the need for city-specific rates/limits entered by the user, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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