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 covered. The description adds non-trivial context beyond that: each statutory term is returned 'with its primary source', which tells the agent the response carries provenance. It stops short of disclosing legal-data freshness, coverage gaps, or error behavior for unknown countries.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first defines exactly what is returned, the second defines accepted input formats. Every clause carries information an agent needs, with 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating the fields and noting source citations. For a legal/compliance tool it is nearly complete, though it omits what happens for unsupported countries and how current the statutory data is.

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 single parameter is already documented as a name, ISO code, or slug, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete accepted forms with examples ('Germany', 'BR', 'united-kingdom'), clarifying case/format expectations beyond the schema text.

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 verb (Get) and precisely enumerates the returned resource: statutory contribution rates, minimum wage, annual leave, notice, severance, probation. This scope is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which concern EOR providers and cost estimates, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Usage is implied by the content of the returned data (employing someone in a country), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative such as estimate_eor_cost or compare_eor_providers. Nothing is misleading; the guidance is simply inferred rather than stated.

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