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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the return object and two province regimes, implying a read-only computation. However, it does not mention error handling, input validation, or constraints beyond the schema. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second directs to list_bundles. Front-loaded with key info, no fluff. Perfect conciseness.

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?

Covers purpose, regimes, and return fields. Schema covers inputs well, and output schema exists. Minor gaps (e.g., error cases) but robust for a simple calculator.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (gross_annual_cad and province). The description reinforces the Quebec vs non-Quebec distinction but adds no new parameter-level details. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb (calculate) and resource (Canadian Employment Insurance premiums) and specifies the two regimes (Quebec vs non-Quebec). It lists the expected return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_canada_rrq.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references list_bundles for related calculators but lacks clear guidance on when to choose this over other Canada financial tools or other EI calculators. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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