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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behaviour, so the description need mainly add domain behaviour. It does: the award follows Articles 84/85 and is reduced on resignation, which tells the caller the result actually changes with the 'reason' parameter. It stops short of noting assumptions (e.g. wage basis, exclusion of unpaid leave) that affect the returned figure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence gives the verb, the resource, the legal basis, and the key special case with zero filler. The trailing web-version URL is mild promotional ballast rather than instructional content, which keeps it off a 5.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema calculation tool, the description covers the purpose and the one behavioural twist but says nothing about the result (presumably an SAR amount plus service duration and a breakdown). An agent can call it correctly, but cannot predict the shape of what comes back.

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 the schema already explains monthly_wage, the date formats, and the reason enum. The description adds only indirect meaning, that choosing resignation triggers the statutory reduction. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (calculate) and resource (end-of-service award/gratuity) and anchors it to Saudi Labor Law Articles 84 and 85, which is far more specific than the name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near neighbours like saudi_final_settlement or saudi_gosi_contribution, so an agent must infer the boundary from the legal citation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the legal reference and the mention of a resignation reduction signal the domain, and the 'reason' enum gates the two cases. There is no statement of when to prefer this over saudi_final_settlement or saudi_leave, and no mention of eligibility prerequisites such as minimum service length under Article 85.

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