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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint false, destructiveHint false), but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains what is computed, the classes preserved (Gazetted vs. Restricted), the exact formula, the REST fallback endpoint, and documentation. This is well beyond what the structured annotations provide.

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 and structured with headings, which helps scanning. But it is overlong for the task: the 'Inputs' list duplicates the schema, and the long 'Outputs' list duplicates the rich output schema, so several lines do not earn their 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?

For a date-range counting tool with rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers purpose, scope exclusions, required and optional inputs, examples, computation behavior, and fallback mechanics.

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 input schema already documents start_date, end_date, office_scope, and the two include flags. The description repeats the inputs and provides a complete JSON example, but that example largely duplicates the schema's own examples and adds no new syntax or constraint detail.

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: it counts 2026 central-government working and non-working dates while preserving Gazetted and Restricted event classes. It also excludes related but different calendars, so an agent can distinguish it from the many sibling count_* 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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance ('auditable 2026 central-government count' with office scope) and explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('state/UT, bank, employer, school, exchange, or exact outside-Delhi local optional calendar'). However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives such as check_india_central_working_day for single-date checks or add_india_central_working_days for date arithmetic.

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