Benefits Safety Net Calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the core calculation behavior: default 5% set-aside, 60/40 health/retirement split, optional emergency buffer, and exact replication of the reference page. It doesn't state the return shape (no output schema exists), but for a calculator the formula and constraints are the main behavioral facts.

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?

Three short sentences cover audience, behavior, defaults, source, and a prerequisite, with no filler. The most decision-relevant information (audience + calculation) is front-loaded.

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 five-parameter calculator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the use case, formula, exact reference behavior, and a country-name prerequisite. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit description of the return format, so it isn't a perfect 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the default split and optional buffer, but those details already appear in the setAsidePercent and emergencyPercent schema descriptions, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 and resource: it 'calculates a monthly set-aside for a self-funded health + retirement safety net', names the target audience, and gives the default formula. This clearly separates it from sibling calculators like take_home_pay_calculator or platform_payout_calendar.

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?

It explicitly scopes when to use it: for workers with no employer-provided benefits, and it gives a required prerequisite ('Call list_benefits_countries first if you don't already know a country's exact name'). It doesn't call out when-not-to-use or alternatives, so it misses the top criterion for a 5.

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