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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose what the calculator returns and mentions default fallback behavior, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only computation or explain any state-law assumptions or limitations.

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 description is compact, front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place: the output list is valuable and the defaults note is useful. The redundant phrase "calculator calculator" is a minor quality flaw that prevents a 5.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the four result categories. Combined with fully described input parameters and default behavior, an agent can understand and invoke the tool correctly, though state-specific caveats are left implicit.

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 fully documents all four parameters and their defaults. The description adds only a generic statement about missing inputs falling back to defaults, which provides no meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ("Run the Long service leave calculator") and the resource, and it lists the four computed outputs, which makes the tool's purpose concrete. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the calculation-focused language distinguishes it from the describe/enquiry tools.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this calculator versus alternatives like calculator_describe or enquiry_fields. The only usage-related information is that missing inputs fall back to defaults, which is helpful but not sufficient for routing an agent to this tool.

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