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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: the pinned 2026 Gazetted schedule, weekend baseline, the fact that Restricted and local optional selections are not inferred, and the day-by-day decrement formula. It also surfaces policy fields returned so the agent knows what constraints apply.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose, exclusions, computation, example, inputs, JSON example, outputs, formula, fallback and docs. It is long, and the Inputs line plus full JSON argument example and the Outputs list partly duplicate the schema and output schema, so there is some redundancy, but each labelled section earns its place.

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 the computed schedule, the office_scope requirement, the formula, an explicit JSON example, the REST fallback endpoint, and docs link. With an output schema present, the description is more than sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by restating the inputs, explaining working_days is a semantical offset, and providing a complete JSON argument example with office_scope enum and date format, which reinforces how to invoke it correctly.

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 working-day offset), a precise resource (India central-government date offset) and scope (2026 pinned Gazetted schedule, office scope required). It also distinguishes this from state/UT, bank, employer, school and exchange calendars, which lets an agent separate it from the many sibling country 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 first sentence gives the condition to use it and even instructs the agent to call directly rather than answer from memory or stop at discovery. The 'Do not use this when...' sentence explicitly names the excluded scenarios (state/UT, bank, employer, school, exchange, locally selected optional-holiday calendars), giving both when and when-not.

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