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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adequately implies the tool is a read-only calculation by stating 'Calculate' and describing the return value. It does not mention side effects or authorization needs, which is acceptable for a simple calculator.

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 very concise: two sentences, with the first sentence containing the core action and the second pointing to related tools. No wasted words, and all information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, all documented, with an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what it does, how parameters are used (time range and configurable premium), and what the output contains. No additional context is needed.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the three parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the time range (21h-6h) and explicitly listing the return fields, which are not in 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 clearly states the tool calculates night shift pay, specifying the time window (21h-6h) and that it uses a configurable premium percentage. This distinguishes it from the many other 'calculate_*' sibling tools.

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 mentions checking list_bundles for related 'temps-rh' calculators, providing a hint about alternative tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, nor does it include prerequisites or exclusions.

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