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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the day-by-day formula, that Saturday/provincial/sector schedules are NOT inferred, a REST fallback endpoint, and a docs link.

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-loads the core purpose, but the body is bloated with boilerplate ("Example user requests", a formula restatement, output field inventory, REST fallback and docs URL) alongside an awkward partially-parsed when-not clause. Useful content is there but it is not tightly edited.

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?

Covers inputs, an example call, the computation rule, the excluded schedule types, and fallback endpoint; with an output schema present, return values need not be enumerated, so it is largely complete. The ambiguous Werktag/when-not wording leaves a small gap in deciding against alternatives.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (Gregorian date range, signed offset with start-date exclusion). The description only restates the input names plus one JSON example, adding little 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?

States a specific verb (add/subtract) and resource (Austria working-day offset) with exact scope, and the Austria identity distinguishes it from the ~60 sibling country tools. An agent can identify the right tool without comparing schemas.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call it (deterministic Austria offset, use directly rather than answering from memory) and gives a when-not condition (nationwide statutory holiday list only). However it never names the sibling alternatives (check_at_working_day, count_at_working_days, add_global_working_days), and the when-not sentence is grammatically garbled.

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