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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add one behavioral fact beyond annotations: omitting 'calc' returns the list of available calculations. It says nothing about the shape of results, units/currency, or whether figures are estimated.

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?

Compact at two clauses, but it is a noun-phrase list rather than a front-loaded statement of action, and the final clause 'Without calc — the list of calculations' is grammatically awkward and easy to misread. No sentence is pure filler, but the ordering buries the key default behavior at the end.

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?

With a nine-way enum at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no indication of what a result looks like or which enum value to pick, the description leaves material gaps. An agent can guess the domain but cannot confidently select a 'calc' value for save, early, or training.

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 0% and the single parameter is a nine-value enum with no descriptions, so the description must carry the meaning. It does roughly map several values to concepts (leave→leavers, burn→burnout, meetings→meetings, value→employee value, roi→return on pay, stability→team stability) but leaves 'save', 'early', and 'training' entirely unexplained.

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 states the domain (HR costs expressed in money) and enumerates the kinds of calculations covered (leavers, burnout, meetings, employee value, pay ROI, team stability). However, it never says what the tool actually returns or does — is it a calculator, a lookup, or a catalogue? The trailing 'Without calc — the list of calculations' hints at a directory behavior but is cryptic rather than clear.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many siblings (company_overview, find_people, hr_projects, etc.), nor of prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is implicit: a 'money' framing suggests cost analysis rather than headcount or project data.

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