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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating exactly what the tool returns: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. The describe framing implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state that it does not perform calculations.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. Each clause contributes a distinct aspect: inputs, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple zero-parameter nature.

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 zero-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what content the agent can expect. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that it describes the calculator rather than executing it, but the essentials are present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by clarifying that the calculator itself has documented inputs and outputs, which is the subject matter being described. No schema parameters require elaboration.

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 identifies the tool as a documentation/description action for the employer cost calculator, listing the content it covers: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is distinguishable from the calculate sibling, though the main verb is implied by the title rather than stated in the description.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus calculate or the enquiry tools. The agent must infer from the title and sibling names that this is for understanding the calculator's behavior rather than running a calculation or submitting an enquiry.

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