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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the content scope of the response but nothing behavioral beyond that — no coverage limits, no behavior for unknown cantons, no rate or auth notes. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not additive.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the scope before the inventory. Every item listed earns its place by telling the agent what the payload contains, though the run-on comma list of a dozen items is harder to scan than a short structured form would be.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains is a read-only, idempotent, canton-keyed lookup, and the description's content inventory is sufficient to call it correctly. Minor omissions are edge-case behavior for invalid cantons and the sibling overlap noted above.

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 both parameters (canton with its multi-language format rules, and language with its enum and default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the burden.

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 names a specific resource and scope — 'everything canton-specific for a private household employer' — and the itemized field list makes the breadth concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as get_minimum_wage or get_employer_guide, whose content it partially duplicates. An agent knows what it returns but not why to pick it over those.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Given that get_minimum_wage and compare_cantons overlap with items listed here, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap rather than a trivial omission.

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