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

Annotations establish this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety burden is lifted. The description does add useful domain behavior — the payout concept includes notice pay and possible court damages for abusive dismissal — but it never says what the response looks like (breakdown lines, currency, whether notice/damages are separate fields), which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

It is compact, but it front-loads an example output rather than the tool's function, and appends a promotional web page URL that doesn't help the agent decide or call. Every idea appears once, but the ordering is not ideal.

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?

With six optional parameters, three enums, and no output schema, the description should clarify what the result contains and how `notice`/`category`/`reason` affect it. It only hints at these through the example, leaving the response shape undocumented for a tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The worked example goes beyond the schema by binding concrete values to `wage` and the start/end dates and showing the resulting figure, giving an agent a sanity check; mentioning notice pay and abusive dismissal also implicitly maps to the `notice` and `reason` parameters.

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 concretely demonstrates what the tool does through a worked example ('MAD 8,000 a month for 10 years earns MAD 50,261.78 severance in Morocco, Labour Code Art. 53'), so an agent can immediately infer it computes Moroccan statutory severance. It never states the verb explicitly and doesn't distinguish itself from conceptually similar siblings like egypt_end_of_service or gcc_gratuity, relying on the jurisdiction name to differentiate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other end-of-service/gratuity calculators, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., employment contract governed by Moroccan Labour Code). The example implies usage but nothing is excluded or clarified.

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