Combined Multi-Platform / Multi-Currency Take-Home Calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well: it discloses that the tool uses live exchange rates rather than estimates, selects the international-account provider that nets the most money, and mirrors a specific web page exactly. It could add more about return format or failure behavior, but the core mechanics are clearly explained.

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 longer than typical but each part earns its place: the user question, the input components, the provider-selection behavior, the differentiator, the mirror reference, and the prerequisite call. It is front-loaded with the core value proposition, though some phrasing is promotional and could be trimmed.

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 there is no output schema, the description does well to convey the expected outcome ('how much do I actually end up with') and provides essential invocation context such as the country-code prerequisite and the live-rate/provider behavior. It does not specify the exact response structure, which is a minor gap for a calculator tool, but overall it is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful framing about platform fees being deducted before conversion and the goal of targeting one currency, but it largely restates what the schema already documents about country, targetCurrency, and platforms. It does not add deeper semantics 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 opens with a concrete user question and clearly states the tool's function: accepting multiple platform earnings in different currencies and converting/combining them into one target currency total. It also distinguishes itself from other take-home calculators by emphasizing its aggregation across platforms and currencies, which separates it from siblings like take_home_pay_calculator.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you have multiple platforms/currencies to combine, and it explicitly notes that most other calculators handle only one platform and one currency. It also gives a concrete prerequisite by telling users to call list_currency_takehome_countries first if they lack a country code, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to use for single-platform cases.

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