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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses what is included (CPP, EI, etc.), what is excluded (workers' comp, EHT, etc.), and that items are never silently omitted. It also specifies the year and province coverage.

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 informative and front-loaded, but slightly verbose. Each sentence contributes value, making it concise overall.

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?

The description covers inputs, exclusions, and scope thoroughly. However, it lacks explicit output format details (e.g., whether a single number or object is returned), which is useful given no output schema.

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 both parameters. The description adds context (e.g., 2026, annual planning) but does not significantly deepen understanding 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 clearly states the tool calculates total employer cost including mandatory contributions, specifies it's for 2026, and lists included/excluded items. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on employer cost vs employee take-home or net-to-gross.

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 indicates use for annual planning figures and specifies supported provinces. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools.

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