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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that severance depends on pay and that entitlements depend on days per week and start date. It does not disclose output shape, defaulting behavior for as_at, or jurisdiction caveats, but adds real context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the outputs and the required inputs with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return values — it does by enumerating the three computed areas. Combined with a high-coverage input schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though a note on units/format of the leave and notice values would close the remaining gap.

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 80%, so the schema already documents each parameter including the worker_type enum and as_at default. The description only reinforces that days_per_week/start_date drive leave and notice while pay drives severance, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb ("Returns") plus an enumerated list of the exact outputs (annual/sick/family-responsibility leave, notice period, severance pay) and the inputs that drive them. The domain is clearly distinct from siblings like minimum_wage_check or overtime_and_premium_pay, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 by naming the BCEA entitlements, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over e.g. minimum_wage_check or uif_sdl_contributions, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference from the topic names.

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