Annualise a task volume

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the output covers both monthly and annual costs for both a person and the AI employee, within one market. This goes beyond a simple read-only declaration.

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 sentences only. The first sentence front-loads the core function, and the second states when to use it. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description compensates by indicating the tool returns monthly and annual costs for both person and AI employee. The inputs are fully documented in the schema, and the purpose is clear. It does not detail currency or formatting, but for a prediction/estimation tool the description is sufficient for selection.

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%, with all three parameters well-described. The description reinforces the meaning of unitsPerMonth ('monthly volume') and market ('one market') but does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema. This is baseline-appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn') and clearly states the resource and scope: 'a monthly volume of a task into monthly and annual cost, for a person and for the AI employee, in one market.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_task_cost, which likely provides only a single cost figure, and list_work_tasks, which lists tasks.

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 second sentence provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when someone asks what a workload costs them per year, or what they would save.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for the intended use case.

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