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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: verbatim FWC output under CC BY 4.0, dollar values only, unknown awards throwing, and a legal-disclaimer caveat. This goes well beyond the structured hints and tells the agent exactly what to expect behaviorally.

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 yet dense, front-loading the core purpose and then adding only high-value caveats: licensing, scope limitation, legal disclaimer, and error behavior. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly states what the call returns: each penalty's multiplier/percentage and FWC's calculated dollar value. It also covers error behavior, licensing, and the key interpretation boundary, making the tool safe and sufficiently specifiable for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description echoes the award code/fixed id distinction and mentions the optional filtering dimensions, but it does not add deeper semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The example reiterates the schema example without enriching it.

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 clearly identifies the resource (penalty rates for Australian modern awards), the data source (Fair Work Commission MAPD), and the return content (multiplier/percentage and FWC dollar value). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on penalty rates rather than allowances or pay rates, and by explicitly stating what it does not do.

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 gives clear context: look up by award code or fixed id, optionally filtered by classification or employee-rate-type. It explicitly states a when-not-to-use boundary ('does NOT determine which penalty applies to a shift') and directs the user to read with the award, but it does not name or route to the relevant sibling tool, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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