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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; its disclosure of a one-credit cost is useful concrete information. However, it does not identify the rate source or period, rounding rules, eligibility assumptions, or other calculation behavior, and the computational nature only implies that it is non-destructive.

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 a short phrase, followed by a compact and useful cost disclosure. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 domain-specific statutory calculation with no annotations or output schema, the description omits important invocation context such as jurisdiction, applicable SSP rate or tax year, and daysPerWeek defaults. The simple schema makes the tool easy to call syntactically, but not to interpret or apply reliably.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3, and the description usefully connects weeksOff to the duration of an absence. It adds nothing about the meaning or default of daysPerWeek, and it does not resolve why that optional-looking input may affect the calculation.

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 conveys that the tool produces a statutory sick pay total based on a number of weeks off. It does not explicitly say "calculate" or clarify the jurisdiction, but the purpose is readily distinguishable from related siblings such as redundancy_pay and holiday_entitlement.

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 implied: use it when an SSP total is needed for an absence measured in weeks. There is no guidance about eligibility, applicable rates or tax years, when not to use it, or how it relates to broader payroll calculations.

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