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

Beyond the read-only, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses what is computed (gross salary, statutory employer charges, total employer cost, difference and ratio to the smallest total, contribution ceilings) and notes the data snapshot date. It also clarifies that this is a cost comparison, not legal or tax advice, which is useful behavioral context.

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?

The description is dense but front-loads the main usage condition and keeps the most important details early. It includes some extra clauses, but they generally earn their place by clarifying invocation order, display mode, data freshness, and legal scope.

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?

Given the rich annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers purpose, when to call, relationship to sibling tools, display behavior, computed outputs, data snapshot, and disclaimer.

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%, so the offer fields are already well documented. The description adds limited parameter-level meaning by saying it takes the same offers as compare_offers and is limited to 2 to 6 countries, but most of that is also evident from the schema.

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 states a specific presentation action (showing employer cost of job offers or salaries as a readable table) with a precise scope of 2 to 6 countries. It clearly distinguishes this display tool from comparison siblings by saying it computes the figures itself and takes the same offers as compare_offers.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when the user wants employer cost shown or displayed as a table) and how to call it (directly with no data tool first, or after compare_offers or compare_countries with their widget arguments). It also gives display-mode guidance: inline up to 3 countries, full screen above.

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