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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as how the calculation treats notice, social security coverage, or termination reason, and it does not describe output or limits.

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 short and front-loaded with an example, but it leads with a specific scenario rather than a general purpose statement. The URL is potentially useful but occupies space that could have clarified the tool's behavior.

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 six parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how the result is derived. Instead it provides only a single anecdotal example, leaving the agent to infer the full calculation behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description echoes a few inputs (monthly wage, years, social security coverage, resignation) but adds no format or interpretation guidance 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 gives a worked example that implies this tool computes a Jordanian end-of-service bonus under Labour Law Art. 32, but it never states the tool's purpose directly. An agent can infer the resource from the example, yet the description does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like jordan_social_security_calculator or gcc_gratuity_calculator.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling alternative applies. The phrase 'even if you resign' hints that resignation scenarios are supported, but this is not framed as usage guidance.

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