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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value lies in disclosing the response contract: legal_basis article, explanation steps, data_confidence semantics ('high = official text; medium = translation or recent amendment'), sources URLs, warnings, and the not-legal-advice disclaimer. It also notes that on_date decides which Saudi rule version applies. This goes well beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss failure modes or unsupported countries beyond the enum.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by statute references and a concrete example, then the response shape. The parenthetical statute list and dense example are information-rich, but the single overloaded opening sentence strains readability slightly.

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?

With an output schema present, the description correctly need not re-derive return values, yet it still summarizes the key fields (legal_basis, data_confidence, sources, warnings, disclaimer). The main residual gap is that the 'contract' and 'in_probation' parameters — which materially affect notice period — are left largely unexplained.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaning for parameters the schema only partially documents — it explains that on_date selects the applicable Saudi rule version and that monthly_wage is used to compute pay in lieu. Some parameters (contract, in_probation) have empty schema descriptions and are only indirectly addressed via the probation/notice wording, so it stops just short of full compensation.

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 names a specific verb and resource — computing the legal notice period, its end date, and pay in lieu — and anchors it to concrete statutes (UAE Art. 43/9, Saudi Art. 75). It is clearly distinct from siblings like end_of_service and probation_rules because it centers on the notice period rather than entitlement calculations.

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 worked example ('country SA', party 'employee', on_date '2026-11-01', monthly_wage 9000) implies the intended use case, which is helpful. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as probation_rules or end_of_service, and no exclusions are given.

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