Salary / pay period converter

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing rounding to 2 decimals, default work-week assumptions, and how overtime and raise inputs behave. It stops short of describing the returned breakdown, which is the one behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and period list, then defaults, then optional overtime/raise. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; only the appended web URL is arguably disposable.

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 10-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description covers inputs well but never explains what comes back – whether all periods are returned, whether a text summary is produced (the currency param hints at one), or the shape of the result. That is a meaningful gap for an agent planning downstream use.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the overtime formula ('hours per week × multiplier'), gives concrete multiplier examples, and states that raise is given either as a percent or as new monthly pay, making the mutual exclusivity of raisePercent/newMonthlyPay explicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Convert pay between...') and enumerates every supported period (hour through year), so an agent immediately knows this is a pay-rate converter rather than a generic calculator like calc_hours or calc_percentage.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description explains the inputs drive the conversion and mentions defaults (40/5/52) and optional overtime/raise, but it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools (e.g. calc_hours, calc_loan) or any precondition/exclusion.

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