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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that 'Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults,' a useful behavioral trait, and implicitly signals a pure calculation with no side effects. It does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, but the calculator framing makes that sufficiently clear.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core action with 'Run...'. The colon-separated list of outputs is dense but informative, and the final sentence about defaults adds value. There is no redundant wording or fluff.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description responsibly lists the four computed figures: hire cost per year, salary multiple, AI route year one, and AI route year two onward. However, it does not specify the response structure or formatting (e.g., numbers vs. currency, JSON keys), leaving the output contract somewhat unclear for an agent.

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?

The input schema documents all 10 parameters with descriptions and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds only a general note about default fallback, which is already represented by the 'default' fields in the schema. No per-parameter meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific action, 'Run the AI against a hire, on the same basis calculator', and enumerates the four outputs it produces. This clearly identifies it as the computational tool and distinguishes it from siblings like 'calculator_describe' and the enquiry-based tools.

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 implies the tool is used for computing cost comparisons, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over 'calculator_describe' or the enquiry tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions, leaving usage guidance to inference from the name and output list.

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