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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful cost disclosure ('1 credit'), but says nothing about the statutory rules applied, jurisdiction, weekly-pay caps, the 20-year limit, or age-band multipliers — all of which materially affect the result.

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?

One tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the cost annotated parenthetically at the end. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical could be split so the cost is not buried in the same clause as the formula.

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 no output schema, the description leaves the return shape unstated — an amount, a breakdown by age band, or a capped figure are all plausible. It also omits jurisdiction and the statutory assumptions, which is a real gap for a legal-entitlement calculator even though the core purpose is clear.

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 reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description does map its three concepts onto the three parameters. However the schema's own descriptions are bare ('number, required') and permit string-or-number, and the description adds no units (currency for weeklyPay, whole years for yearsService) or validity constraints.

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 (statutory redundancy pay) and enumerates the three inputs that determine it, so the agent knows exactly what computation this performs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent statutory-calculation siblings like holiday_entitlement or statutory_sick_pay, which keeps it 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how it relates to the similarly named entitlement/sick-pay calculators in the sibling list. The agent must infer from the domain name alone that this is the right calculator for redundancy rather than notice pay or holiday pay.

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