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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by flagging that the handle is opaque/private and that results are estimates rather than quotes, but it does not explain invalid/expired handle behavior or pagination.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and the safety caveat; the final sentence about resubmitting a processing scenario is terse and slightly cryptic but not wasted.

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 one parameter and an output schema present, the description need not describe return values, and it does cover state semantics (processing vs. completed). It is close to complete, missing only error/expiry handling guidance.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does supply provenance (created by estimate_employer_cost), opacity, and confidentiality of estimate_id, but it omits any hint of the strict 32-character format or what an invalid handle yields.

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 ('Read the calculation created by estimate_employer_cost') and ties the resource to the exact sibling that produces it, so an agent can immediately distinguish this read tool from the create tool.

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?

Makes clear the input must come from estimate_employer_cost and adds a negative rule ('Do not resubmit a processing scenario'), but never mentions get_public_product_facts or what to do when the estimate is still processing beyond that brief exclusion.

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