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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing the composite execution, the failure mode when computed is null (read computed_error), and the exact semantics of the partial flag, including the two shapes that carry incomplete results. It also explains the account-link behavior per leg provider, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether results are trustworthy.

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 core purpose and then adds prerequisites and failure semantics. Every sentence conveys necessary information, but some phrasing is convoluted (e.g., 'we fetched everything - the legs hold it') and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the computed material, the computed_error path, and partial flag semantics for both failure shapes. However, it does not define the full structure of the success envelope, which is a notable omission for a composite tool with multiple internal legs.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (billing_year, billing_month, idempotency_key, business_management_no), so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, though it does mention the login prerequisite and default workplace behavior in the schema description.

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 operation ('Composite employment-insurance summary v1'), the internal pipeline (COMWEL premium billing notice search then employment detail as internal Jobs), and the output (computed employment_insurance_won material). This clearly differentiates it from sibling generate tools like payroll_pack__premium_summary_v1__generate by naming the employment-insurance scope and composite behavior.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires prior comwel session login') and notes the account-link behavior, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or include exclusions. Usage context is implied by the name and composite description, yet no direct routing to sibling tools is given.

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