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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the legal basis and its currency (rules year 2026, last updated 2026-09-26), that amounts are gross statutory minimums, the source page, and the return payload (result rows, raw engine outputs, sources with lastChecked, disclaimer).

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is computed before moving to legal currency, source page and return shape. Dense with § references but every sentence carries information; the only slight drag is the pipe-separated enumeration of covered allowances, which reads as a list crammed into a paragraph.

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 9-parameter, 5-enum calculator with no output schema, the description supplies the needed framing: jurisdiction, statutory basis, year/update stamp, gross-minimum caveat, source URL, return contents and disclaimer. It stops short of explaining how the conditional inputs interact with the result semantics or any rounding/validation behavior.

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% and each parameter carries detailed Slovak-language documentation, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description's only added parameter meaning is the meta-note that 'Only used when' inputs are conditional, which is marginal but not zero value.

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 resource and scope: Slovak statutory minimum severance pay (odstupné, §76), plus the exact additional computations covered (wage compensation on immediate termination §69, odchodné §76a, minimum notice period dates). The legal citations and 'gross statutory minimums' qualifier make the tool's remit unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling calculators such as slovakia_rental_income_tax.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: nothing tells the agent when to pick this over a sibling calculator or what preconditions the user must meet. It does give conditional parameter guidance ('Inputs marked "Only used when" are needed only in that case'), which is useful but is about filling inputs, not about tool selection.

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