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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the return object structure, which adds transparency, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Since it is a calculation tool, the lack of side effects is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list the return fields. It is efficient and to the point, with no unnecessary 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?

For a simple calculation tool with two parameters and an implied output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the calculation logic and fields returned. The lack of differentiation from a sibling tool is a minor gap, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning or context beyond the schema, such as constraints or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 French overtime pay with specific rates (+25% and +50%) and a weekly threshold of 35h. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'calculate_overtime_fr', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (French overtime pay calculation) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from similar tools like 'calculate_overtime_fr'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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