Take-Home Pay Calculator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about included costs, the ~2% conversion estimate, optional transaction fees, the exact 18-platform scope, and the fact that it 'Mirrors platformincome.com/take-home-pay.html exactly.' It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, but the verb 'Calculate' plus calculator context makes that sufficiently clear.

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 sentences with no filler: the main purpose is front-loaded, the optional fee behavior is summarized, and the prerequisite lookup call is placed last. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core calculation, fee options, platform scope, and the required lookup prerequisite. It does not describe the return shape or period breakdown, but the schema documents period behavior and the tool's purpose makes the output self-evident. Slightly more detail about the returned values would make it fully complete.

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 value beyond the schema by explaining the optional fee semantics (~2% conversion, per-withdrawal fees), the platform-id precondition, and the exact mirror target. It does not discuss period or currency, but those are already well documented in 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate actual take-home pay after platform fees, optional currency-conversion cost (~2%), and optional per-withdrawal transaction fees' for a defined set of 18 platforms. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by naming list_take_home_platforms and pinning behavior to a specific external page, making its role unmistakable.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool for computing take-home pay across specified platforms and optional fees. It also provides a concrete prerequisite, 'Call list_take_home_platforms first if you don't already know a platform's id.' It does not explicitly state when to prefer another calculator sibling, such as currency_takehome_calculator, so it falls short of a full when/when-not contrast.

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