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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description adds a worked example (QAR 10,000 basic, 7 years → QAR 49,000) that lets an agent sanity-check a result, and notes each country follows its own Labour Law article, but it never mentions that the resignation vs termination choice materially changes entitlement.

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?

Three sentences with no filler, but the order is backwards: a specific numeric result leads, the actual purpose statement comes second, and the URL trails. Leading with the worked example rather than the tool's job hurts front-loading.

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, and the example partially compensates by showing the shape of a result. However, the description is silent on how the 'reason' parameter (ended vs resigned) alters the payout and on the fact that results differ per country statute, leaving an agent with material behavioral gaps despite the full schema coverage.

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 the important Kuwait distinction about basic wage vs full remuneration, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The worked example reinforces that 'wage' means basic salary in Qatar, but adds nothing beyond that. Baseline 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 second sentence states the specific resource and scope: end-of-service gratuity for Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman under each country's Labour Law article. It is clear what is computed, but it never names nearby siblings like uae_gratuity_calculator or saudi_end_of_service_calculator, so differentiation from those is left to inference.

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: naming the four covered countries plus the country enum (QA/KW/BH/OM) suggests UAE/Saudi/Egypt users should go elsewhere, but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement. An agent must infer routing from the country list.

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