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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive domain behavior beyond that: which jurisdictions are in force (Stadt Luzern yes; Zürich/Winterthur voted but not yet in force) and that the federal floor only binds from 5 hours a week. Return format and pagination are not mentioned but an output schema exists.

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?

Purpose and regional scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the input guidance in a short second sentence. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but each element (in-force vs pending minimums) earns its place; no filler.

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?

Given zero required parameters, an output schema that covers returns, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the domain context an agent needs to pick inputs correctly. A note on the optionality/defaults of postcode and canton would close the remaining gap, but coverage is strong.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates postcode-vs-canton priority that the schema already conveys ("A postcode is better") and echoes the 5-hour rule in the schema, adding little semantic detail beyond what structured fields provide.

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 and resource — the legal gross hourly minimum wage for household work — and enumerates the layers it resolves (federal NAV tiers, cantonal, city, sub-5-hour rule). This is clearly distinct from siblings like compare_cantons or get_canton_rules, which an agent can distinguish without opening a schema.

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?

"Give the workplace postcode for the exact answer, or a canton" tells the agent what inputs drive precision and implicitly when a postcode is preferred. It does not, however, name adjacent tools (e.g. get_canton_rules) or state when this tool is the wrong choice, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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