payroll_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about which tax components are included, which is beyond the annotations. It also states it provides estimates, setting expectations about precision. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a scoped list of covered taxes. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 description adequately conveys what the tool computes for a simple calculator. It lists the covered tax components and implies the output (employer costs and net pay). Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact return fields could help, but it is sufficient given the simplicity.

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%: both parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, just identifying gross salary as the basis. It does not elaborate on state_suta_rate beyond what's in 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 estimates employer payroll costs and employee net pay from gross salary, and enumerates the specific taxes covered (FICA, FUTA, SUTA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like us_income_tax_estimate and self_employment_tax.

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 scope is clear: it's for employer-side payroll cost estimation and employee net pay. It implies usage for payroll-related calculations, and by listing covered taxes it suggests when it applies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'not for income tax').

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