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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the meaning of data_confidence (official text vs. translation/secondary source), the presence of warnings and sources, and a not-legal-advice disclaimer, plus the 19 Feb 2025 amendment boundary for Saudi.

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?

Purpose and jurisdictions are correctly front-loaded, but the description then enumerates the full response shape (result, legal_basis, explanation[], data_confidence, estimated_items[], sources[], data_version, warnings[], disclaimer) even though an output schema exists, making roughly half the text redundant.

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 annotations covering safety, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the remaining description burden is light, and the definition covers jurisdiction scope, confidence semantics, and legal caveats. The one gap is routing guidance against the notice_period sibling for post-probation questions.

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%, including the enum values and the 'agreed_days defaults to legal maximum' note, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's worked example ('AE', '2026-11-01', 90) illustrates format and defaults but adds little semantic detail the schema does not already state. Baseline 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?

States precisely what it computes: probation length limits per jurisdiction, the derived end date, and the notice rules inside probation, citing the exact governing articles (UAE Art. 9, Saudi Art. 53). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like notice_period or end_of_service without opening the schema because it is scoped to the probation window.

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 example invocation implies the intended call pattern, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the near-neighbor sibling notice_period, which also deals with notice rules. The boundary between 'notice rules inside probation' and a general notice-period tool is left to inference.

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