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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the credit cost. It omits jurisdiction, whether statutory caps/tapering apply, rounding, and what the response contains — all material for a statutory calculation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a clearly parenthesized cost note — nothing superfluous. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps noted elsewhere.

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 simple three-input calculator with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, but it leaves the agent guessing about jurisdiction, output shape and edge cases. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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% but the schema descriptions are bare ('number, required'), so the description's mapping of age, years of service and weekly pay to the calculation adds some real meaning (units and roles). It still gives no format hints (e.g. weekly pay in GBP, whole years) beyond the parameter names.

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 names a specific resource and verb-equivalent ('Statutory redundancy pay') and states the three inputs it derives from, which is enough for an agent to recognize it as a payroll/HR calculation tool. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as statutory_sick_pay or holiday_entitlement, so it falls 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The jurisdictional scope (presumably UK statutory scheme) and the boundary versus sibling payroll tools must be inferred.

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