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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: eligibility scope (private-sector, full-time, foreign workers), assumptions (continuous service, no unpaid leave, no deductions), calculation method, cap, and free/rate-limited status. Missing details like authentication specifics are covered by 'no authentication required'.

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?

Front-loaded with core purpose and calculation method, then eligibility and assumptions, then operational details. Every sentence is packed with useful information and no waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (UAE labor law specifics), the description is quite complete: it covers eligibility, calculation rules, caps, assumptions, and operational parameters (free, no auth, rate limited). With an output schema present, it need not explain return values. Minor gap: doesn't clarify date semantics or salary currency assumptions beyond 'AED'.

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% – the schema has no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'monthly basic salary' for basicSalary and implies date range from startDate/endDate through service duration, but doesn't explain date formats or how dates are used. Baseline 3 because schema structure is simple and the description adds some context, but it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'AED estimate for UAE end-of-service gratuity' with clear scope. Distinguishes from siblings like uae_vat, uae_corporate_tax, uae_real_estate_vat by focusing on gratuity. An agent can immediately identify this tool's unique function.

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?

Description implies usage through eligibility criteria ('covered private-sector full-time foreign workers', 'at least one year service') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't say when NOT to use this tool or what sibling might be better. Implied context only.

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