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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial beyond that: step-by-step output, legal_basis, explanation steps, data_confidence levels, estimated_items, sources, data_version, warnings, and a not-legal-advice disclaimer.

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 front-loads the core computation and legal rules, then gives an example and response shape. It is dense but mostly earns its space, though the formula detail is lengthy.

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 eight parameters, two enums, an output schema, and annotations, the description supplies the legal framework, jurisdiction distinction, example, confidence model, and output caveats. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 documents all eight parameters thoroughly. The description adds an example and mentions resignation fractions and unpaid-day exclusion, but most parameter meaning is already carried by 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 states a specific verb and resource: compute UAE end-of-service gratuity or Saudi award, with the governing articles named. It is clearly distinct from sibling HR calculators such as annual_leave_entitlement or notice_period.

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?

It makes clear when to use the tool: UAE Art. 51 gratuity or Saudi Art. 84/85/87 award, with an example call. It does not explicitly exclude cases or compare against sibling tools, but the end-of-service scope is unambiguous.

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