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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds substantial context: the calc-core engine, the explicit 'never estimates' guarantee, the failure mode for incomplete input, the 15% fee rounded down to $5, and the returned rate year, cited formulas with attorney-review flags, and disclaimer. What it does not cover — rounding rules beyond the fee, ordering of returned cases — is minor against the annotation coverage.

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?

It is a dense single paragraph but front-loaded with the scope and case structure before the return values and failure mode. The marketing parenthetical about the engine being behind the app, website calculators and Pro Workspace is expendable, and the enumerated return values could be tightened.

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 tool wrapping a deeply nested case array, the definition covers inputs, unit expectations, failure behavior, and — crucially, since there is no output schema — the shape of the response including fee treatment, totals, rate year and citations. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret it is missing.

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?

Only the top-level 'cases' parameter lacks a schema description, and the description compensates by explaining what each case element carries: its own AWW, date of accident (its own max and min), apportioned loss of use per member, protracted healing period, prior payments and credits. The wording is slightly indirect, since 'protracted healing period' must be mapped by the agent to the schema field weeks_at_temporary_total, and it does not explain units or how the per-member percentages combine.

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 a specific verb and resource — apportions a schedule loss of use across two to six established claims of one claimant — and adds the New York-only scope plus the difference from the single-claim sibling tools (each case carries its own AWW, date of accident and apportioned loss of use). An agent can tell this apart from calculate_slu_award without opening either schema.

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?

It clearly establishes the usage context: two to six established claims belonging to a single claimant, New York State only, and it defines the missing-input behavior (returns status "missing" and calculates nothing). It never names an alternative sibling such as calculate_slu_award for a single claim, so the when-not condition is left to inference through the 'two to six' bound.

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