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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful domain scope (what inputs drive the result), but says nothing about the return form or how proration is resolved; with annotations doing the safety work, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core question and then lists the determining factors. No filler or repetition of the name/title.

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 5-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description conveys the domain and the factors affecting the result, and annotations cover safety. It could say more about what the output actually contains (a day count, breakdown), but it is broadly sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 all five parameters are already documented (year, start date, children, birth year, disabled children). The description mirrors those concepts at a high level without adding format or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific computation (how many vacation days are due under the Labor Code) and enumerates the sub-cases it covers: base leave, age- and child-based supplements, young employee, mid-year proration. It is clearly distinguishable from numeric siblings like afa_szamitas and ber_szamitas, though it does not name any sibling 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?

The description implies usage by listing the covered scenarios (age, children, proration), which helps an agent recognize the right case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternative tools. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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