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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world calculation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the result is a factor-by-factor breakdown, missing fields default to a zero score rather than erroring, and the figure is an unofficial estimate rather than an authoritative determination. That last caveat matters for how an agent relays the output.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with purpose, output shape, default-scoring rule, and disclaimer in that order. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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 14-parameter domain-specific calculator with no output schema, the definition covers what is needed: the framing (EOI estimate), the return shape (factor breakdown), and the omission rule. It does not state the scoring scale or maximum, and the per-pathway applicability of fields like wage and practiceMonths is left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds a cross-parameter rule the schema cannot express: omitted fields score 0, which tells the agent it may pass a partial profile and that absence is scored, not rejected.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: estimates an Ontario Workforce Priority Stream EOI score from a profile. It also states the output shape (factor-by-factor breakdown), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_scoring_grid. It does not explicitly name or contrast the siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied - supply a profile, omit unknown fields and they count as 0 - and the 'Unofficial estimate' caveat sets expectations. However, it never says when to use this versus get_scoring_grid, nor which pathway to pick for a given user, nor that pathway is the only required field.

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