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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tool is descriptive, listing the categories of information it returns (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), which implies it is a read-only informational tool. It does not specify whether the output is structured text, JSON, or a document, but for a describe-type tool, this is 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 description is a single, compact sentence that efficiently enumerates the main content categories: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the key information. It could be slightly more direct with a leading verb like 'Describes...', but it remains appropriately sized and well structured.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: it returns calculator documentation including inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It does not explicitly state the format or purpose of the returned information, but the description is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline, a no-parameter tool receives a 4 because parameter documentation is irrelevant. The description appropriately focuses on the informational content returned rather than 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 what this tool provides: the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It identifies a specific resource (New Zealand final pay calculator) and distinguishes it from the sibling calculate tool by indicating this is descriptive metadata rather than the calculation itself. A minor gap is that it lacks an explicit action verb, reading as a noun phrase, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 implies usage: an agent would call this to understand the calculator's behavior before or instead of invoking calculate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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