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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the $0.50 price, free refusal behavior with coverage_gap/no_charge, shared free-call limits, api_key versus x402 behavior, optional receipt behavior, and legal/certified-extract limitations. These details materially help an agent understand cost, payment, failure, and receipt semantics.

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 front-loads the paid nature and core purpose in the first sentence, which is good structure for a complex paid financial tool. It is dense and somewhat overpacked with receipt and certified-extract caveats in a single paragraph, but most sentences add relevant operational or legal context.

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?

Given the paid flow, nine-parameter schema, complete schema descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the important operational context: pricing, api_key/x402 behavior, free refusals, receipt semantics, verification, and legal caveats. It omits explicit sibling-tool routing, which keeps it from a 5.

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 all nine parameters, including gross, country, period, start_date, taxable_income, receipt, and api_key. The description adds some context around api_key checkout and receipt non-equivalence, but most parameter meaning is already carried by the schema, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: it costs a hire as a cited dossier covering salary/wage-floor verdict, contributions, employer cost, optional income tax, and first working day. Scope is clear with 'Countries here: AU.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as compute_employment_cost or check_minimum_wage, keeping it below 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?

The description gives payment and access guidance: pass api_key if available, otherwise an x402 payment requirement applies, and unanswerable requests are refused free. It does not say when to choose cost_hire over sibling tools like compute_employment_cost, hire_compare, or check_minimum_wage, so usage is only implicitly guided.

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