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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, indicating this is a calculation without side effects. The description adds behavioral context by listing all cost components included (super, workers comp, etc.) and mentioning state-specific calculations, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists key components. Ideal front-loading and length for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool.

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 the presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what inputs are relevant, and includes cross-references to another tool (hiring.wage_data). No gaps identified.

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% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'baseSalary' (use hiring.wage_data for market rates) and the 'trade' parameter (incentive calculation), enriching the schema information.

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 clearly states the tool calculates the true cost of hiring an employee or apprentice in an Australian state, listing specific components like super, payroll tax, and incentives. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hiring.capacity_analysis or hiring.compliance_checklist.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (cost calculation) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify when not to use it. The sibling list suggests many other hiring tools, so adding explicit guidance would improve this dimension.

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