income_contributions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the content (deductions and classifications) but says nothing about behavior such as sorting, aggregation, default year handling, read-only nature, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It communicates the core idea efficiently. However, it omits critical details, so it's concise but under-specified, not a model of well-structured completeness.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify what 'year-to-date' means, how the optional year affects results, what the return format looks like, or any edge cases. An agent would likely need to trial-and-error to use it correctly.

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 only parameter, 'year', has zero schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention 'year' at all, so an agent cannot infer its purpose (e.g., filters by year, defaults to current year). The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 the tool lists payroll deductions year-to-date with classifications and employer contributions. It is specific about the resource (payroll deductions) and the verb (lists). It partially distinguishes from siblings like income_summary or income_statements by focusing on deductions and contributions, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it's not a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus income_summary, income_statements, or other siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The description implies it's about payroll deductions but lacks any usage context.

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