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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: the tool is a pure computation whose output is a deadline plus informational working-day-adjusted deadline and two amounts, and it constrains inputs (2026 delivery date). It does not, however, discuss edge behavior such as what happens when the 7-day window falls on a holiday or how the amounts are rounded.

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?

The purpose, constraints and outputs come first, and the catalog enumeration follows in a single dense block. It is long, and the id list partially duplicates the schema enum, but each entry adds legal-article and MRP context that the enum alone does not provide, so the length is largely earned.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the four computed outputs. Inputs, exclusivity rule and the 2026 constraint are all covered. Minor gaps remain around rounding, currency/tenge units and the year-validation failure mode, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 genuine meaning the schema lacks: it spells out what each violation_id means in Russian/Kazakh with the governing КоАП article and MRP multiple, explains the either/or relationship between violation_id and custom_mrp_multiple, and ties delivery_date to the 2026 restriction.

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 and resource: 'Calculates the deadline and amounts for paying a Kazakhstan administrative (traffic) fine with the 50% discount'. It also enumerates exactly what is computed (strict deadline, informational deadline, full/discounted amounts, remaining days), which unambiguously separates it from the sibling kz_* calculators, none of which deal with traffic fines.

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?

Explicit input rules are given: 'Give either violation_id from the catalog or custom_mrp_multiple (fine size in MRP), not both' and 'Delivery date must be in 2026'. That is real routing guidance for the agent, though there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over the (non-overlapping) sibling calculators.

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