Deel Calculate Employment Cost

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds context that this is an EOR-specific cost calculation, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as what cost components are included or whether currency conversion applies. With strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 carry everything needed: the action and resource in the first sentence, and explicit usage triggers in the second. There is no fluff, redundancy, or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a simple, read-only calculation tool with rich annotations and 100% parameter coverage, the description is largely complete. It identifies the intended use case and required inputs. It does not describe the return format or cost breakdown, but with no output schema and an obvious monetary result, this is a minor gap rather than a significant one.

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 clearly documented: country full name, annual gross salary, and currency code. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate the total cost of hiring someone in a specific country through Deel EOR.' It clearly identifies the tool's domain and naturally differentiates it from sibling deel_calculate_take_home_pay, since employer cost and employee take-home pay are opposite concepts.

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 description gives explicit trigger phrasing: 'Use when the user asks "how much would it cost to hire in [country]?" or about employment costs abroad.' This is clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., take-home pay questions), so it stops short of a full when-not/alternative statement.

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