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 without the description. The description adds return-content detail (document, URL, check date, verbatim sentence), but discloses nothing about auth, limits or response shape beyond what the output schema provides.

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-loaded with the resource, then the usage cue in a short second sentence. The long enumeration of figure categories is dense but earns its place by signalling coverage breadth; no filler sentences.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, scope and intended use adequately. It need not explain return values given the output schema, though the sibling-routing gap keeps it from being fully complete.

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% and the enum values are already documented in the schema, so the description's topic list (contribution rates, thresholds, minimum wages, BVG, etc.) largely mirrors structured data. It adds only the nuance that the verbatim sentence is included "where recorded", which is marginal.

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: the federal and cantonal figures behind Clino's numbers, along with their source documents. It conveys what the tool surfaces, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with overlapping siblings like get_minimum_wage or get_canton_rules, which also expose figures.

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?

"Use it to cite or verify a number" gives a clear usage context, so the agent knows this is the provenance/citation path rather than the value lookup path. However, no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given, leaving the choice among get_minimum_wage, get_canton_rules and this tool to inference.

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