EOR provider fees

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond them: a fixed data snapshot date (2026-10-01), the 'quote only' sentinel for providers that publish no price, and per-provider coverage gaps. These details materially affect how an agent interprets results.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core data description, followed by the sentinel-value rule, snapshot date, and disclaimer. Each sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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 burden of describing return shape and does so — fee, pricing-page URL, read date, uncovered countries, plus the 'quote only' case. Adequate for a two-optional-parameter read tool; only the absence of sibling routing keeps it from being fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description clarifies that country results also report per-provider coverage, reinforcing the schema's 'Also say whether each provider covers this country' note, but adds no new syntax or format guidance beyond it.

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 precisely what data is returned — published Employer of Record fees per employee per month across 14 providers — along with the fields bundled with each fee. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like employer_cost or total_hiring_cost, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 context is implied by 'Cost comparison, not legal or tax advice', which signals the intended comparison use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to the sibling tools (compare_countries, employer_cost) that also deal with cost.

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