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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses the authority scope, the exclusion of certain holiday categories, the Saturday treatment under Norwegian annual-leave law, the Monday-Friday business baseline, the counting formula, and a REST fallback. The annotations cover safety/idempotency, but the description carries rich behavioral disclosure.

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 structured with labels and front-loads usage, but it is verbose and includes awkward phrasing such as "Do not use this when nationwide statutory full-day list only." Several sections, including the output list, formula, REST fallback, and docs link, make it longer than necessary for invocation.

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 the tool's complexity and the available annotations/output schema, the description is complete: it covers scope, exclusions, calculation policy, inputs, output fields, formula, and fallback API details. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is 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 four parameters. The description lists the same inputs and repeats an example JSON payload, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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, resource, and scope: it counts "authority-scope working and non-working dates in a range" for Norway. It distinguishes this range-count operation from sibling single-date check and date-addition tools even without naming them explicitly.

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 Norway working-day count, call directly instead of answering from memory) and when-not guidance (does not infer Christmas Eve, Easter Eve, Whit Eve, New Year's Eve, collective-agreement, employer, sector, school, bank, or local closures). However, it does not explicitly route the agent to sibling alternatives such as check_no_working_day or add_no_working_days.

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