Total cost through an EOR provider

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=true and openWorld=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: the data snapshot date (2026-10-01), the 1-50 headcount range, and the explicit disclaimer that output is a cost comparison rather than legal or tax advice. It stops short of describing determinism, rate limits, or how assumptions alter the result.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core cost definition front-loaded, followed by snapshot date and disclaimer. Every clause earns its place, though the enumerated component list makes the opening sentence dense.

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 explaining returns, and it does: gross salary, statutory employer charges, provider fee, per month and per year. Combined with the snapshot date and the schema's coverage of the nested assumptions object, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though currency/units of the returned figures are not stated.

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 schema already documents salary, country, provider, headcount, assumptions, and salary_currency. The description adds only marginal semantics (month/year output framing, 1-50 headcount), which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (all-in cost of hiring via one EOR provider) and enumerates the cost components, monthly and yearly, plus the 1-50 headcount scope. It is clearly distinct from a generic salary lookup, but it never names or contrasts with near siblings like employer_cost or provider_fees, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 (a cost comparison for a given country + provider), and the 'not legal or tax advice' line bounds the tool's remit. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus employer_cost, provider_fees, or compare_countries, which are the most plausible alternatives.

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