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

Annotations already declare a pure, idempotent, read-only calculation (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain context (126 vs 140 days, coverage until 1.5 years, which income base feeds which benefit), but omits any caveats about approximation, statutory caps on insured income, or which assumptions the 2026 rules embed.

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, all front-loaded: multilingual synonyms first for matching, then the computed components, then the input branch conditions. No sentence is redundant with the others, and the most decision-relevant branching (employed vs not) is placed last for emphasis.

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?

For a 6-parameter, no-output-schema calculator, the description covers what is computed and the conditions on inputs, which is the bulk of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned estimate (breakdown vs total) or the statutory ceilings that make the result an estimate rather than an exact entitlement.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping each benefit to its income base (12-month income for leave, 24-month for childcare) and clarifying that incomes are ignored entirely when is_employed is false. It does not add format/syntax detail for the income parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 (estimates) and resource (Kazakhstan state benefits around a birth in 2026) and enumerates the three components computed: the one-off birth payment, the maternity leave payment, and the monthly childcare allowance. No sibling tool in the list covers maternity benefits, so the resource is unambiguously distinguished.

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?

Gives clear conditional context: an employed mother requires the 12-month and 24-month average income inputs, while a non-employed mother uses only fixed amounts by child rank and incomes are ignored. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but no sibling overlaps this domain, so routing is unambiguous.

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