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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states inputs (mentions due date, prior children, multiple birth) and outputs (leave days and allowance estimate). However, it does not discuss side effects, authentication, or limitations. The mention of 'due date' as an input is misleading since it is not in the schema. Basic transparency but incomplete.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently conveys inputs and outputs. However, the inaccuracy regarding 'due date' detracts from precision. Still, it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of French maternity leave and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a brief overview of inputs and outputs. It mentions return values ('pre/post-birth leave days and allowance estimate') but lacks details on edge cases, prerequisites (e.g., eligibility rules), or any constraints. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with two parameters (existing_children and twins) described. The description adds semantic meaning by mapping 'prior children count' and 'multiple birth' to these parameters, but it incorrectly introduces 'due date' which is not a parameter in the schema. This misalignment reduces clarity and adds confusion.

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 tool's purpose: 'Compute French maternity leave duration and IJSS allowance.' It specifies the action (compute) and resource (French maternity leave), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the French-specific HR context and referencing related 'finance-france' calculators via list_bundles.

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 explicitly recommends usage for 'HR or expectant parents,' providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond hinting at list_bundles. The sibling list is large but the tool is specific, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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