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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this returns 'official' tables (provenance/authoritativeness) and strongly implies a side-effect-free lookup, but never states it is read-only or describes failure handling for unavailable years or out-of-range inputs. Adequate but with clear gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 scope is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the second sentence largely restates it ('retrieve official Cyprus social-insurance reference figures for a user-specified calendar year') rather than adding new information. Only the final clause about not assuming the year earns its place beyond sentence one.

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 one-parameter, fully documented lookup with an output schema, the description covers purpose, sourcing, and year-selection behavior well enough to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior (what happens for years with no published table or outside the 1981+ range).

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics: it tells the agent to reuse a year already provided and not to guess the applicable tax/reference year. That is guidance the schema's bare 'Reference year' field does not supply.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — returning official Cyprus Social Insurance reference tables for a given year — which is clearly a data lookup rather than a calculation, distinguishing it from siblings like calculate_cyprus_state_pension or calculate_cyprus_income_tax. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usable when-to-use context ('retrieve official Cyprus social-insurance reference figures for a user-specified calendar year') plus concrete behavioral guidance: reuse a year already supplied rather than re-asking, and don't assume which tax/reference year applies. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so not a 5.

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