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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantive behavior: employer charges plus optional EOR fee are deducted from the budget first, ceilings/floors/bands/fixed amounts are honored, the monthly salary is expressed at the country's statutory payment count, and currency round-tripping is stated. It also discloses the data snapshot date and the not-legal-advice caveat, which go well beyond structured fields.

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 use case and quoted examples, then the mechanics, then caveats — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is a dense single paragraph, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 annotations, a full input schema, and an output schema, the description supplies the remaining essentials: budget semantics, fee ordering, rounding/period behavior, and data freshness. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears 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; the description earns an extra point by clarifying that the budget is all-in and that eor_fee_usd_month is removed from the budget before solving, plus that local-currency input returns local currency with USD in brackets. It still leaves the `assumptions` override barely explained beyond the schema text.

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 computation (largest gross salary whose statutory employer cost fits the budget) on a named resource, and ties itself to the employer_cost ledger, which distinguishes it from siblings. The inverse relationship to employer_cost is clear enough that an agent can pick correctly.

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 concrete trigger phrasing in two languages and an explicit exclusion ("Do not use for net pay"), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name the alternative tool to use instead for net pay or for budget-free salary lookups, so routing is clear but not fully closed.

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