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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that it returns the legal minimum, the shortfall and monthly equivalents, which is valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of disclosing how the date maps to rate-table versions or whether non-compliant results are flagged as errors.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the check and scope, then the return payload. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 correctly covers the return values, and it identifies the jurisdiction and worker categories. It is slightly thin on rate-versioning behaviour for the date parameter and on the unexplained epwp worker type, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the schema already documents date, amount, hours_per_day and hours_per_week, and the description's mention of day/week/month periods and 'farm and domestic workers included' loosely reinforces period and worker_type. However, it never explains the 'epwp' enum value or why hours_per_day/hours_per_week matter, so it adds only marginal meaning over the schema.

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 (checks) and resource (wage against South Africa's National Minimum Wage) with the exact dimensions supported (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly) and the jurisdictional scope. This clearly separates it from siblings like overtime_and_premium_pay and uif_sdl_contributions, which address different payroll computations.

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: an agent can infer this is the compliance-check step before running premium pay or contributions calculations. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions (e.g. non-SA wages, future-dated rates), and no pointer to a sibling tool for related questions.

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