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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults and lists the output quantities, but it does not mention tax-year assumptions, accepted period values, or side effects/state changes.

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 description is compact and front-loads the action and outputs before the fallback note. It is slightly redundant with 'calculator' appearing twice in the first clause, but there is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema calculator, the description covers the operation, the outputs, and default behavior. The main gap is the lack of explicit period options and rate/tax-year assumptions, but the definition is still adequate for straightforward invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the two parameters. The description adds context about defaults and weekly assessment, but it does not explain the allowed values of period or how pay is normalized. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and names the resource (PRSI calculator Class A), then enumerates the computed outputs: weekly gross pay, employee/employer PRSI per week, and employee PRSI per year. It is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling calculator_describe.

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?

The description implies use for calculating PRSI values, and the fallback-defaults note hints at how missing inputs are handled. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over calculator_describe or the enquiry_* siblings, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

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