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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the data source (Fair Work MAPD), the 'verbatim' nature with a CC BY 4.0 license, the exact fields returned (amount, all-purpose flag, payment frequency), and an explicit scope limitation. This is a transparent disclosure of what the tool does and does not do.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: source, input semantics, output fields, licensing, scope boundary, and disclaimer. The most important information is front-loaded and the caveats appear in logical order. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains how to identify the award, what is returned, the distinction between wage and expense allowances, and the important limitation that applicability is not determined. Given the strong annotations and simple parameter set, nothing essential 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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions and an enum for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of valid 'kind' values ('leading hand, first aid, tool' vs 'meal, travel, vehicle') and confirming that the award parameter can be either a code or a fixed id. This layered detail earns a 4.

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 identifies the resource ('allowances from the Fair Work Commission MAPD') and the lookup mechanism (award code or fixed id), which makes the purpose immediately understandable. It is not a tautology and does more than restate the tool name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like award_pay_rate or award_penalties, which keeps it just short of 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 strong contextual guidance: which award to use, the kind filter, and a clear statement that this tool only provides dollar values and does not determine applicability. It even advises reading with the award and notes it is not legal advice. It stops short of naming alternative tools or saying 'use this over X', so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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