Compare countries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: rows return in requested order with no ranking, and the data is a snapshot dated 2026-10-01, which tells the agent about result freshness and output ordering.

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?

Four short clauses, each doing distinct work: scope, ordering, data vintage, and disclaimer. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant fact (what cost is computed) leads.

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 usefully covers what comes back (ordered rows) and the data vintage, and it flags the EOR-fee exclusion. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for invalid country codes, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 50%, and the description's '2 to 10 countries' plus 'same gross salary' duplicate the bounds and semantics already encoded in the schema. It adds no format or edge-case detail (e.g., unknown country codes) beyond what the parameters declare, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 computation (statutory employer cost of the same gross salary across 2-10 countries) with an explicit scope bound ('before any EOR fee'), which implicitly separates it from cost siblings like total_hiring_cost. No sibling is named outright, 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?

Usage is implied by the framing ('Cost comparison, not legal or tax advice') and the exclusion of EOR fees, but the description never says when to pick this over employer_cost or total_hiring_cost, nor states prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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