計算勞保老年年金（月領）

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

Describes the calculation formula, eligibility check, and reference-only nature. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Adds value beyond schema with formula details, but could elaborate on algorithm or assumptions.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, formula, eligibility, and disclaimer. No wasted words, though slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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?

Covers key aspects: formula, adjustment, eligibility, disclaimer. But lacks output format (currency, value type) and details on the two formulas. No output schema, so description should compensate more.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, only contextualizing the 15-year requirement. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it calculates the monthly old-age pension using the legal formula, specifying the two formulas and adjustment rates. The title includes '月領' (monthly), distinguishing it from lump sum or single payment siblings.

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 mentions eligibility (years < 15 not eligible) and disclaimer, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives like lump sum or single payment. No explicit when-not or sibling differentiation.

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