income_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that imputed_offset_ytd nets to zero and explains the semantics of net_pay_ytd (only banked amount) and payroll_savings_ytd. This is useful and transparent about data meaning, but it does not state that the tool is read-only or mention any constraints/permissions, which is a gap given the lack of 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 efficiently written, with the core purpose front-loaded first, followed by critical caveats. Every sentence carries meaningful information—no filler. The structure guides the reader from the general function to the specific calculation and the offset nuance.

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?

While it explains key fields and the disposable calculation, it omits the meaning of the 'year' parameter and does not explicitly describe the full set of returned fields (though they are partially listed). It also lacks any comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent uncertain about when to choose this over income_statements or income_contributions. Partial completeness only.

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 single parameter 'year' is completely undocumented in the schema (coverage 0%). The description does not mention 'year' at all, though the phrase 'year-to-date' might imply its purpose. This is insufficient: the agent is left to infer that 'year' filters the summary, and the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb ('earnings from payroll') and the resource ('income_summary'). It clearly indicates the tool provides a year-to-date summary, and the mention of specific fields (net_pay_ytd, payroll_savings_ytd, imputed_offset_ytd) further distinguishes it from sibling tools like income_statements or income_contributions.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for using the output ('Use disposable_ytd = net_pay + payroll_savings when judging whether income covers spending'), which tells the agent how to interpret the data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for preferring this over income_statements or income_contributions, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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