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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that dates are shifted after weekends and that legal bases are included. It also states the Germany-only scope. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loads the Germany-only scope, then uses a concrete list of deadline types to convey coverage. The German and English versions repeat content, which is slightly redundant but useful for an international agent.

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 read-only calendar tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return content: deadlines, actual dates, and legal basis. The schema covers all five optional parameters. It does not describe output structure or sorting, but nothing critical 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%, and the schema already documents jahr, land, kategorie, land_einzugsstelle, and lohnsteuer_zeitraum in detail. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the resource and deliverable: all fixed payroll deadlines in a year, with actual dates after weekend shifts and the legal basis. The title reinforces 'Lohnjahr-Kalender', and the enumerated deadline categories distinguish it from single-topic siblings like hr_lohnsteuer_anmeldung or hr_sv_faelligkeit.

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 description clearly establishes the intended use: obtaining a comprehensive annual calendar of fixed payroll deadlines for Germany. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the 'Alle festen Fristen' framing provides a clear context that separates it from more specialized tools.

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