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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the calculation components and the fallback behavior for missing inputs ('Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults'). It does not explicitly assert statelessness or no side effects, but the calculator nature and output list make the tool's behavior reasonably transparent.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the list of outputs is compact. Minor redundancy ('calculator calculator') and the duplicate title detract slightly from an otherwise tight description.

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?

For a tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the practical essentials: what is calculated, the key default fallback rule, and the main outputs. It could still be slightly more explicit about the returned shape or the role of the 'casual' input, but it is largely complete.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds high-level context (e.g., holiday pay at 8%, using 'your rate' for ACC) but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description uses an explicit verb ('Run') and a named resource (Employer cost calculator), and enumerates the exact calculations it performs (KiwiSaver, ACC levy, holiday pay, true annual cost). This clearly separates it from descriptive sibling tools like calculator_describe and enquiry_describe.

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 instruction to 'Run' the calculator implies it is the execution tool rather than the describe/enquiry siblings, but the description never states when to prefer it or when to use alternatives. There is no explicit exclusion or routing guidance, so usage is only implied.

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