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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: legal_basis attribution, data_confidence semantics (official text vs translation/secondary source), warnings, and a not-legal-advice disclaimer. That's real disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Purpose and legal rates are front-loaded, the example follows, and the response listing closes it out with no filler. The packing is dense (legal citations, enums, and output fields in one block), which borders on run-on but stays scannable.

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 two-country statutory calculator with an output schema and full annotations, the definition covers the essential context: jurisdictions, rates, response shape, confidence levels and disclaimer. It falls short only on currency assumption and the precise meaning of the 'hours' input.

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 only 50% — 'hours' and 'basic_monthly_wage' have empty descriptions — but the example clarifies their use and the uplift percentages (+25%, +50% night/rest day) explain how 'kind' changes the computation. The one remaining ambiguity is that the currency/units of the wage and whether 'hours' means overtime hours only are never stated.

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?

States a specific resource (overtime pay at the legal uplift on the basic hourly wage) with the legal bases for both supported jurisdictions, and the example invocation pins down the calculation domain. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like annual_leave_entitlement, end_of_service or wage_breakdown.

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 worked example ('country AE', basic_monthly_wage 6000, hours 10, kind 'night') implies the usage context but the description never states when to pick this tool over a sibling or what conditions make it inapplicable. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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