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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the auto-selection of simplified vs ordinary procedure and that results mirror the public calculator, which tells the agent what to expect without re-reading schema.

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-loads the purpose, then adds scoping and engine details. Slightly dense in the long parenthetical enumerating every deduction and contribution, but each clause is informative rather than filler, so it earns its length.

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 an 8-parameter calculation tool with a full output schema, the description covers inputs, scope, and calculation behavior adequately; return values are handled by the output schema. It could be slightly more complete on caveats (e.g. that results are estimates), but nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's clarification that canton is where the household lives (vs. workplace_postcode being the workplace) and its deduction list add marginal interpretive value but largely restate structured data. 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 verb+resource (estimate employer cost and net wage) with explicit scope (Swiss private household, cleaner/nanny/babysitter/carer) and enumerates what the estimate contains. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_minimum_wage or compare_cantons.

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?

Gives clear context: household employment in Switzerland, uses the same engine as Clino's public calculator, and automatically picks simplified vs ordinary procedure from the annual wage. It never explicitly says when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g. compare_cantons or get_minimum_wage) instead, so it stops short of 5.

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