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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content categories (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, returns documentation rather than performing a calculation, or describe any side effects. The name 'describe' mitigates this, but the text alone is not fully explicit.

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 compact sentence front-loads the content scope and uses parallel structure to list the three components. There is no fluff or repetition; every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter describe tool without an output schema, the description gives a sufficient high-level contract: what the returned description covers. It could be more complete by mentioning the form of the output or how it relates to the 'calculate' sibling, but these are minor.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter details to document; the baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'inputs' refers to the calculator being described, not to call parameters, so no confusion in the schema context.

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 resource (Malta salary calculator) and specifies its scope: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It clearly suggests a describe/documentation tool and is distinguishable from the sibling 'calculate', though it lacks an explicit operation verb like 'describes' or 'returns documentation'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus the sibling 'calculate' or the enquiry tools. The agent can infer that the description is meant to explain the calculator, but there is no explicit statement such as 'call this before calculating' or 'use calculate to run the calculator'.

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