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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds worthwhile context the annotations cannot: the German-law jurisdiction restriction and the specific statutory bases (§ 622 Abs. 3 BGB, KSchG, BBiG) that determine the computed results. It stops short of describing output shape, but no output schema exists and the enumerated results partially substitute.

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?

Content is dense and front-loaded toward the computed outputs and the usage trigger, but 'Germany only. German employment law, Germany only:' repeats the same constraint twice in the opening, and the second sentence is an overlong list that could be split. The redundancy costs it a point.

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 six-parameter calculator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description enumerates what the agent will get back (probation end, dismissal deadline, Kündigungsschutz start, review dates) and covers jurisdiction and special cases (Ausbildung, Befristung). That is sufficient for correct invocation; only an explicit note on the beschaeftigte threshold effect would strengthen it.

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 schema carries all parameter meaning (dauer/einheit, beginn, ausbildung, befristet_bis, beschaeftigte). The description only loosely connects to parameters by mentioning apprenticeships and fixed-term contracts, without adding syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 description names the specific computed outputs — probation end date, last day for two-week notice dismissal under § 622 Abs. 3 BGB, Kündigungsschutz start, and review-meeting dates — rather than restating the title. It also scopes coverage to apprenticeships (BBiG) and fixed-term contracts (Befristung), which separates it from siblings like befristung or kuendigungsfrist_rechnen.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use it when someone asks when a probation period ends or until when they can still dismiss with the short notice.' The repeated 'Germany only' framing establishes jurisdiction context, though no sibling tool is named as a fallback for non-German or non-probation questions.

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