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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses honest statuses for missing floors and period mismatches, and explicitly states cross-period conversion is never guessed. It also explains the payment mechanism via api_key or x402. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects, but the purpose implies a query.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence immediately explains the purpose and return values. The second sentence covers edge cases and payment. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 4 parameters, no output schema. The description covers return values (verdict, margin, floor, instrument) and key edge cases (no floor, period mismatch). It explains payment flow. However, it does not enumerate possible verdict statuses or provide examples of the response structure, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

The input schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the optional api_key parameter and emphasizing that the period must match the statutory floor's period, reinforcing the schema's note. It does not elaborate on the country or amount parameters beyond schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Compliance verdict: is a salary at, above or below the country's statutory minimum wage?' It identifies the specific verb (check/compliance), resource (minimum wage), and scope (country-specific). It is distinct from sibling tools which deal with taxes, holidays, etc.

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 the tool is for checking minimum wage compliance but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The optional api_key parameter is mentioned but not contextualized as a requirement. Absent any alternative tool for similar purpose, the guidance is adequate but not proactive.

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