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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, closed-world read. The description adds real context beyond them: each term carries its source and check date, and the data snapshot is dated 2026-10-22, telling the agent how fresh and how auditable results are. It does not state coverage limits (which countries have data), which would have earned a 5.

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 the trigger condition, then examples, then exclusions — good ordering with no filler. The trailing 'Cost comparison, not legal or tax advice' reads as boilerplate that is slightly off-topic for a statutory-terms tool rather than a cost comparison.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, exclusions and data currency. The only omission is country coverage — whether every country is supported or where list_countries fits — which an agent might reasonably want before calling.

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?

A single parameter at 100% schema coverage, with the schema already specifying ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 or country name. The description adds no format or edge-case guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('statutory minimums') and enumerates the exact dimensions covered: paid leave, public holidays, probation, notice period, 13th-month pay. This clearly separates it from the compare_* siblings, which are about cost comparison rather than statutory facts.

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?

Explicit trigger ('when the user, hiring in a country, asks about statutory minimums'), two concrete example queries, and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use for legal advice on a specific dismissal, contract dispute or visa'). Nothing is left for the agent to infer.

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