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

With annotations covering read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, the description still adds substantial operational context: statutory holidays, paired transfers, three working Saturdays, no automatic substitute Monday, decree expiry in 2027, and the exact formula. It also discloses that an explicit work_schedule is required and that other schedule types are not inferred. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case and structured with headings, but it is quite long and repeats requirements such as the explicit work_schedule across multiple sections. It also enumerates many output fields even though an output schema exists, and includes formula, REST fallback, and docs links that are useful but not tightly scoped. The content is organized, but not concise.

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?

Given a 5-parameter tool with an output schema, annotations, and many siblings, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: required inputs, an argument example, scope limitations, formula behavior, and fallback information. The output schema means return-value details need not be explained further, and the description still lists output fields for transparency. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears 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 schema already documents all five parameters and the work_schedule enum. The description lists the inputs and provides a complete JSON example, but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when structured fields carry the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: counting Hungary working days, with scope limited to authority-scope general Monday-Friday schedules. It also distinguishes the tool from memory-based answers and from schedules covering shifts or institution-specific openings. An agent can identify this as the Hungary count tool among many country-specific count_* siblings.

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 a clear use condition: 'Use this when you need an auditable Hungary working-day count,' and instructs the agent to call the tool directly instead of relying on memory. It also provides exclusions such as no shift, personal, bank, exchange, school, local-office, or payroll schedules. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like check_hu_working_day or add_hu_working_days, so routing guidance is strong but incomplete.

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