WCB Alberta Premium Calculator

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The word 'Estimate' hints at a computation, but the description does not state whether the tool is read-only, what assumptions or formulas are used, whether it persists data, or what side effects (if any) occur. No return format is described.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple calculation tool.

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 straightforward calculator with well-documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose but omits behavioral context such as whether the result is an estimate only, any limitations, or what the output looks like. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on the return value would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level link between payroll and industry classification, which clarifies the role of industry_rate_per_100, but it does not provide additional details about parameter syntax, units, or calculation logic beyond what the schema already gives.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Alberta premiums'), with a clear basis ('payroll and industry classification'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_payroll or calculate_corporate_tax by naming a unique calculation target.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for WCB Alberta premium estimation, there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate.

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