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

Annotations already establish this is a read-only, closed-world computation, so the safety bar is low. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the substantive modeling assumptions: the two rate tiers, the weekly maximums, the 15-week maternity component, and the one-week waiting period that reduces payable weeks. What it does not disclose is how standard and extended parental weeks interact in the result.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, and the jurisdiction/scope constraint is front-loaded before the rate details. The phrase 'parental weeks' is left dangling without a number, which costs a little clarity for the sake of brevity.

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 four-parameter estimator with no output schema, the description supplies the rate structure and caps but omits the total maximum weeks (40 standard / 69 extended) and how mixed standard/extended claims are treated. An agent can select the tool confidently but cannot predict the returned figure without reading the schema closely.

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 each of the four parameters (annualIncome, includeMaternity, extendedParentalWeeks up to 61, standardParentalWeeks up to 35) is already documented. The description adds the rate ceilings that give those week counts meaning, but it does not clarify how the two parental-week inputs combine or whether they can be used together, leaving the semantics to 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 names the specific benefit program (EI maternity and parental), the jurisdiction ('Canada (outside Quebec)'), and the rate mechanics it models (55% up to $729/week, 33% up to $437, 15 maternity weeks, one-week waiting period). This clearly separates it from quebec_qpip. It falls short of an explicit verb like 'calculates' for a given income, but the resource and scope are unmistakable.

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 '(outside Quebec)' qualifier implicitly routes Quebec users to quebec_qpip, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of related siblings such as parental_leave_income_gap or ireland_maternity_leave_pay for comparison, and no statement of prerequisites or typical caller intent.

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