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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. Beyond the annotations it discloses real modeling assumptions: the A$200.94/day figure from 1 July 2026 is tied to the national minimum wage, super is 12% on top, and the gap is computed before tax. What it omits is whether employer full-pay weeks replace or stack on PLP and whether the returned gap is annualized or per-week.

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?

A single dense sentence with jurisdiction and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is tightly packed, though the run-on list of rate, super, employer weeks, and gap takes effort to parse.

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 calculator with no output schema, the description covers inputs and key assumptions but leaves the output composition unstated — an agent cannot tell whether the result reports PLP, super, and gap separately or as one figure, nor whether employer full-pay weeks substitute for PLP days.

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% and each nested field (plpWeeks, weeklyPay, employerFullWeeks) is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description does add one thing the schema does not: the 130-day pool is shared between the one or two parents, which constrains how plpWeeks values should be chosen.

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 names the specific benefit (Australia Parental Leave Pay) and enumerates what the calculation covers: shared 130 days, per-day rate, 12% super, optional employer full-pay weeks, and the pre-tax gap against normal pay. The 'Australia:' prefix implicitly separates it from the Ireland/UK/Canada siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone that this applies to Australian parents, and there is no routing signal toward near-neighbours like parental_leave_income_gap, parental_leave_bill_split, or ireland_maternity_leave_pay.

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