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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults and lists the outputs produced, which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it persists anything, or how legal/calculation rules are applied.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, and the default-fallback sentence is useful. However, the phrase 'calculator calculator' is redundant and the semicolon-separated output list is somewhat awkward. It is concise but not polished.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to do more work. It lists output concepts but does not explain how parameters like owpMode, irregular, or grossEarnings interact, nor does it clarify how to choose between this and sibling tools. The schema fills some gaps, but the overall context remains incomplete.

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 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; it only mentions defaults, which are already present as default values in the schema. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 runs the annual holiday pay calculator and lists the output categories it computes (ordinary weekly pay, average weekly earnings, weekly rate, annual holiday pay). The verb 'Run' plus the resource is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'calculator_describe' and contains the redundant phrase 'calculator calculator'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculator_describe or enquiry_describe. The only behavioral note is that missing inputs fall back to defaults, which is about invocation behavior rather than selection between tools.

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