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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context that it follows FK 2026 rules and returns a source and planner link, but it does not describe calculation caps, assumptions, or the exact response shape beyond the two amounts.

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 two sentences and front-loads the calculation, output units, and regulatory basis. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

This is a low-complexity calculation tool with two fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety behavior. The description supplies the key return values (SEK/day, SEK/month gross) and source/link, though without an output schema it could say slightly more about the exact returned structure.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the monthly salary concept and adds no extra meaning for manadslon or dagar_per_vecka, matching 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: calculating parental benefit in SEK/day and SEK/month gross for a monthly salary under Försäkringskassan 2026 rules. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as plan_leave or get_rules_2026.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus explain_rule, get_rules_2026, or plan_leave. Usage is only implied by the calculation wording, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate routing.

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