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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some value with the statutory basis (Decree-Law 33/2021) and the 'Not legal advice' disclaimer, which signals estimate-only output, but it says nothing about precision, currency assumptions, or what happens when mode-specific params are omitted.

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?

A single tight sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with scope and statute before the disclaimer. Appropriate size for a tool whose structured fields carry the rest, though the parenthetical citation slightly interrupts the flow.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a 13-parameter tool with three mutually exclusive calculation modes and only 2 required params, the description omits which optional parameters each mode consumes. An agent cannot tell from this description what to supply for 'final_settlement' versus 'annual_leave'.

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 0% across 13 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It names the three calculator modes (which map to the required 'calculator' enum already defined in the schema) but never explains start_date/end_date, day_hours vs night_hours, notice_days vs notice_worked_days, or which parameters apply to which mode.

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 the resource (UAE labour law estimates), the governing statute, and the three calculation modes covered: overtime pay, annual leave, final settlement. This distinguishes it from most siblings (grocery, housing, transport), though it fails to differentiate from the closely related end_of_service_gratuity tool.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing among the three calculator modes. It never acknowledges that end_of_service_gratuity exists as a sibling whose scope overlaps with the final_settlement mode, which is exactly the kind of choice an agent needs help with.

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