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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real domain context the annotations cannot: the governing statute (Egypt's 2025 Labour Law) and a concrete output magnitude, but it says nothing about rounding, whether results are estimates, or how the optional insured-wage field affects 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?

A single compact sentence pairs an illustrative computed result with the legal basis, then a URL. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the bare link is of marginal utility to an agent and no explicit purpose sentence precedes the example.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; the example gives one sample figure but not the shape of the response (breakdown by service years, notice compensation, insured-wage interaction). Adequate to identify the tool, thin for anticipating its output.

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%, including enum guidance for reason and a clear explanation of insured, so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing per-parameter, though the example implicitly illustrates the default wage and tenure.

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 worked example (EGP 15,000/month for 7 years → at least EGP 210,000 for unjustified dismissal, plus EGP 45,000 for no notice) makes clear this computes Egyptian end-of-service/severance pay under the 2025 Labour Law. The jurisdiction is named, which separates it from jordan_end_of_service, saudi_end_of_service and morocco_severance siblings, but the description never states the action in a direct verb+resource sentence.

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 only implied: the mention of 'unjustified dismissal' and 'no notice' hints that the reason and notice inputs drive the result. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the closest siblings (egypt_social_insurance_calculator, gcc_gratuity_calculator) and no statement of when this tool is the wrong choice.

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