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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already supplied, the description adds useful context: the $103,000 earnings ceiling, weekly amounts and totals, and the split of shareable weeks between parents. It does not detail output structure or calculation assumptions, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that packs the scope, plan/event coverage, earnings cap, output nature, and week-sharing context without filler. Every clause contributes to selecting or interpreting the tool.

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 six-parameter read-only calculator with no output schema, the description covers the jurisdiction, year, plan and event scope, earnings cap, output nature, and shared-week behavior. It could more explicitly state that the tool calculates/estimates amounts and how singleParent affects results, but it is largely complete.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the earnings cap, that amounts are weekly and total, and that shareable weeks are split between parents. This clarifies key semantics for salary and sharedWeeks1.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope: Quebec QPIP/RQAP parental insurance for 2026, covering plans, events, earnings, weekly amounts, totals, and shareable weeks. The verb is implicit rather than explicit, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can clearly distinguish it from the Canada EI sibling.

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 description provides clear usage context by naming Quebec, QPIP/RQAP, 2026, both parents, basic or special plan, and birth or adoption. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, which keeps it from a 5, but the domain scope is clear enough for selection.

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