Statutory employer cost

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: a data snapshot date, the convention that floor/ceiling totals are rendered 'at least'/'at most', and an explicit not-legal-advice disclaimer. It stops short of describing failure modes or coverage limits (which countries, how stale).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose, output shape, qualifier convention, snapshot date and disclaimer are ordered by importance. The single long sentence packs a lot, though the disclaimer and snapshot could be trimmed slightly.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so well: per-contribution rate, base, ceiling, official source and check date, plus monthly/annual totals and percent of gross. An agent knows what it will receive and how totals may be qualified.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema (including the assumptions override example). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 verb+resource: the statutory employer cost of one employee in a country, explicitly scoped 'before any EOR fee'. That scoping distinguishes it from siblings like provider_fees and total_hiring_cost without opening any schema.

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?

The implicit use case (comparing statutory cost per country, not full hiring cost) is derivable from the 'before any EOR fee' and 'cost comparison' phrasing, but no sibling is named and no when/when-not condition is stated. Adequate but relies on inference.

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