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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral substance: the award tiers, the 2x/1.5x/1.3x wage thresholds, 'whichever is higher, never both', caps of 150/140, and that no LMIA is needed. It stops short of explaining the return format.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is one sprawling, comma-chained sentence packed with ratios and point values that is hard to parse quickly. The content largely earns its place, yet structure suffers.

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 no-output-schema calculation tool, the description covers inputs, rule precedence, thresholds, and caps thoroughly. The main remaining gap is that the response shape (delta vs. updated total, per-occupation breakdown) is left unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining that NOC codes are resolved against IRCC's wage-level list and by tying the caps to spouse_counted. This gives the wage/structure semantics the schema alone does not.

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 (Estimate) and a precisely scoped resource (CRS points gained on Nov 3, 2026 under the new Labour Market Integration factor), with the calculation rules and caps inline. It is unambiguously distinct from the CELPIP and occupation-lookup siblings.

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 tells the caller to supply NOC codes and that only this factor changes, which implies the usage context, but it never names when to pick this tool over find_high_wage_occupation or the CELPIP tools, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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