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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the pinned 2026 schedule scope, required workweek variant semantics, the counting formula, output fields, REST fallback URL, and documentation 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?

The description is structured with clear labels and front-loads usage guidance, but it is longer than necessary for a count tool with an existing output schema. Listing all output fields and including a trivial formula duplicates structured data and adds low-value content.

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 5-parameter schema, full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers scope limits, required workweek semantics, inputs, outputs, fallback endpoint, and documentation.

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%, and the schema already documents every parameter including examples and constraints. The description mostly repeats the parameter list and supplies a complete JSON example, adding little semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 working and non-working dates for Uzbekistan under a pinned 2026 schedule and required workweek variant. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like check_uzbekistan_working_day or add_uzbekistan_working_days.

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 nationwide count with explicit workweek semantics') and a when-not-to-use condition ('workweek or employer/shift scope is unknown'). It does not name alternative sibling tools for checking a single day or adding working days, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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