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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose the key behavior — dates are pushed off weekends and bank holidays and a submission deadline is returned — but says nothing about defaults (e.g. lead_days, adjust), what calendar resolution means for joint calendars, or what the response structure looks like. Useful but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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 dense sentence with the most important output (pay dates, submission day) front-loaded and no filler. It reads as a noun-phrase fragment rather than a stated action verb, which slightly weakens the opening but wastes no words.

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?

With eight parameters, two enums, no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more than it does. It conveys the returned dates and submission deadline but omits the anchor-for-weekly/biweekly requirement and the meaning of specifying multiple calendars, leaving notable gaps for a moderately complex tool.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most of the eight parameters, and baseline 3 applies. The description adds conceptual meaning to 'adjust' (moving off closed days) and to 'lead_days' (the submission business day), but leaves 'day', 'days', 'anchor', and 'year' entirely to the schema.

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 names a specific output: a year's pay dates on a payroll schedule, holiday/weekend-adjusted, plus the submission business day. That is concrete enough to distinguish this from generic date math. However, it never names or contrasts with siblings like ach_settlement_date or fx_spot_date, so an agent must infer the payroll-specific scope on its own.

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?

Use is only implied via the word 'payroll' — an agent can guess this is for generating a payroll calendar rather than a single settlement date. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use, nor any pointer to the sibling date tools, despite several overlapping candidates.

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