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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive=false) by disclosing pricing, the free-refusal policy, the shared 3-calls-per-IP-per-day quota, api_key metering, x402 fallback, and the optional Ed25519 receipt with its no-extra-charge behavior. It also explicitly disclaims legal advice and points to verify_answer_receipt for verification.

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?

Front-loaded with price and purpose, which is good, but the prose is dense and the receipt/certified-extract caveat is repeated in both the description body and the receipt parameter schema. Several clauses (certified extract SKU, verification route) are useful but inflate the definition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers pricing, coverage limits, refusal semantics, authentication paths, receipt behavior, and verification. Nothing an agent needs to decide or invoke this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the optional receipt behavior on paid success (and that free refusals/unpaid 402 do not include one), and ties taxable_income to the income-tax schedule and start_date to the first working day. It adds value beyond the schema without fully documenting every parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cost this hire') and enumerates the concrete outputs of the dossier: wage-floor verdict, employer/employee contributions, employer cost, optional income tax and first working day. It also scopes the tool geographically ('Countries here: CA, MX, US'), which separates it from broader siblings like compute_employment_cost and check_minimum_wage.

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?

Gives clear operational context: paid at $0.50, shares the 3 free calls per IP per day, pass api_key if you have one otherwise you get the x402 payment requirement, and anything unanswerable is refused free. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or a 'use this instead of X' condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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