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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds real context: the data_confidence rubric (high = official text, medium = translation/recent amendment), warnings, sources, and a not-legal-advice disclaimer. That is meaningful disclosure beyond structured fields, though it omits any country-coverage caveats.

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?

Two dense sentences with the computational rule front-loaded and the example immediately after. The return-field enumeration is somewhat list-like but each item carries distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-value detail is arguably redundant, but the data_confidence semantics and disclaimer are still useful. The main gap is the undocumented optional wage parameter, which neither schema nor description clarifies.

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 33% — basic_monthly_wage and total_monthly_wage have empty descriptions. The description partially compensates with a worked example ('AE', 6000, 10000) and the ÷30/÷8 convention, but it never explains what total_monthly_wage is for or whether it is optional/derived.

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 concrete operation — converting monthly figures into daily and hourly basic/total wages using the country convention (÷30, ÷8) — plus the legal-basis note it returns. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like overtime_pay or end_of_service, though the description never explicitly routes against them.

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 only implied: it computes wage conversions for AE/SA and attaches the basis each entitlement uses. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion against overtime_pay/end_of_service, which also deal with pay figures.

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