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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup, so safety needs no restating. The description adds real behavioral context by disclosing that fees may be quote-only rather than published and that every figure carries a primary-source URL.

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, front-loaded with what is returned before the accepted input forms. The return-field enumeration is long but each element is informative, so little is wasted.

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 return-value burden and does so by naming the data categories returned. The single required parameter is fully documented, though it does not say what happens for an unknown provider name.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already says 'Provider name or slug', so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by clarifying that either form is accepted and giving four concrete example values, which is genuine added meaning.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one EOR provider') and enumerates the returned facets (published fee or quote-only terms, country coverage, owned-entity footprint, delivery model, best-for, source URL). The word 'one' clearly separates it from the list_eor_providers sibling.

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?

It documents accepted input forms with concrete examples ('Deel', 'oyster-hr'), which is useful, but never says when to choose this over list_eor_providers or compare_eor_providers. Usage is implied by the singular 'one provider' framing rather than stated.

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