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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the rate structure (60% basic, +20pp spouse, +10pp per dependant capped at three), the supplement formula and its cap at one weekly basic insurable earning, and the graceful-degradation rule of reporting 'entitlement undetermined' plus asking each missing question. This is well beyond what the schema reveals.

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 formula and guardrails are front-loaded and useful, but the opening sentence and the following 'Use to estimate…' sentence restate the same purpose, and the eligibility checklist is repeated across two sentences. Modest redundancy costs it a point.

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 10-parameter calculator with an output schema, this is complete: the description supplies the domain rules, the required-input story, the eligibility criteria, and the missing-data behavior. Return values are covered by the output schema, so no gap remains.

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 would be 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value by explaining how parameters combine (percentage-point additions, per-dependant weighting, cap at three, the supplement being 50% of supplementary earnings). It does not, however, map every one of the ten parameters to its role, leaving some entitlement fields to the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb (estimates) and resource (Cyprus unemployment benefit), and explicitly splits the tool into two functions: amount estimation and separate entitlement assessment. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling calculators such as calculate_cyprus_income_tax or calculate_cyprus_state_pension.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions for the calculation path (claim date, relevant-year insurable earnings, dependants) and the entitlement path (insurance history, employee status, registration, availability for work). It also names a prohibition — 'Do not infer those facts from annual earnings' — and prescribes fallback behavior when facts are missing.

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