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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one behavioral trait (default fallback) and the computed outputs. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only calculation with no side effects, but the calculator framing makes that the reasonable reading.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the fallback behavior is a useful addition. The duplicated 'calculator' is a minor editing flaw but does not obscure meaning.

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?

All five parameters have full schema documentation, and the description names the four output categories, compensating for the missing output schema. It lacks usage/exclusion guidance and exact calculation details, but for a straightforward calculator with documented defaults this is nearly 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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 exact operation and resource: it runs the Australian employment cost calculator and enumerates its four outputs. This clearly differentiates it from the describe/enquiry siblings, which have no calculation role.

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 sentence telling an agent when to choose calculate over calculator_describe or the enquiry tools. The purpose is clear but the decision context is left entirely to inference.

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