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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a return summary (pre/post-birth leave days and allowance estimate), which is largely redundant given an output schema exists, and no auth/rate/determinism context beyond the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the four short sentences are easy to scan. The list_bundles cross-reference is mildly extraneous but not wasteful.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. The only shortfall is the phantom 'due date' input, which slightly undermines completeness.

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?

The description claims inputs of 'due date, prior children count, multiple birth', but the schema only defines existing_children and twins — there is no due_date parameter. 'prior children count' and 'multiple birth' loosely map to the schema, but advertising a non-existent input can mislead an agent, even though schema coverage is 100%.

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 verb and resource: 'Compute French maternity leave duration and IJSS allowance.' The France/HR domain and the two outputs (leave days, IJSS allowance) make it clearly distinguishable from the many other calculate_* tools, especially generic due-date and leave-day calculators.

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?

Names a target audience ('HR or expectant parents') and links to list_bundles for related 'finance-france' calculators, but never states when to prefer this over close siblings like calculate_due_date, calculate_pregnancy_due_date, or calculate_leave_days. Usage is implied rather than delimited.

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