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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults, and lists apparent output components. However, it does not state that the tool is a pure calculation with no side effects, nor describe the return format beyond the brief list.

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 concise at two sentences, but the duplicated word 'calculator' and the unlabeled semicolon list reduce structural quality. The key behavior (default fallback) is saved for the second sentence, which is fine, but the overall presentation is slightly sloppy.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the full return value is, how inputs like service, noticePay, and publicHolidays factor into the calculation, or which inputs are relevant in which employment scenarios. An agent would struggle to know what to expect from the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only references concepts like 'unused annual holidays' and '8% of gross earnings' without mapping them to the named parameters.

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 'Run' and names the resource 'New Zealand final pay calculator', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculator_describe and submit_enquiry. However, the typo 'calculator calculator' and the ambiguous semicolon-separated list (inputs vs. outputs) prevent full clarity.

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 alternatives. The phrase 'Run the New Zealand final pay calculator' implies a calculation use-case, but it does not mention calculator_describe, submit_enquiry, or any conditions or exclusions.

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