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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent, so the description doesn't need to. It does add useful domain behavior: the 11% employee and 18.75% employer rates and the 2026 wage band under Law 148. It does not explain the shape of what comes back, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

It leads with a concrete example, then the legal limit band, then the source URL. It is compact and says nothing that is obviously wasted, although the limit range duplicates the schema.

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 one-parameter, read-only calculator with no nested objects and no output schema, the agent needs the rate split and a rough sense of the result. The example supplies both (employee and employer amounts). The description is nearly complete; the only real gap is that it doesn't describe the output fields explicitly.

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?

There is only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100%; the schema even repeats the EGP 2,700–16,700 limits. The description restates those limits verbatim, so it adds essentially nothing to what the structured field already says. A 3 is the baseline here.

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 worked example ('On an EGP 10,000 insurable wage you pay EGP 1,100 a month (11%) and your employer EGP 1,875 (18.75%)') makes it clear this computes employee and employer Egyptian social insurance contributions, and the country plus Law 148 reference separates it from siblings like jordan_social_security_calculator or gosi_calculator. However, the description never states the action in a direct verb+resource phrase; the purpose has to be inferred from the numbers.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over social_security_calculator, gosi_calculator, or egypt_end_of_service_calculator, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The reader has to infer that this is the Egypt-specific tool from the name and the Law 148 mention.

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