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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context beyond them: it discloses that the result is hypothetical, states the denominator assumption, and explicitly disclaims geographic allocation, resident liability, and local wage/employment claims — valuable guardrails against misinterpreting the output.

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 action is front-loaded ('Hypothetically divide...'), and the two sentences contain the operation, the caveats, and the source without filler. Dense but every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive computation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the denominators used, the disclaimers, and the data source. Enough for correct invocation, though it could clarify the response shape or supported amount bounds in more detail.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the amount as Canadian dollars with an example. The description adds only the 'supported CAD' qualifier, which is mildly useful but largely restates the schema, so 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?

States a specific operation: hypothetically dividing a supported CAD amount by NL population, households and reference median wage to express it in human terms. This distinguishes it from the get_/search/fetch siblings, which are data-retrieval tools rather than a scaling calculation.

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 phrase 'supported CAD amount' implies the accepted input domain and that non-CAD or non-supported amounts are out of scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or naming of an alternative sibling. Usage is only implied by the tool's nature.

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