calculate_leave_cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that weekends, public holidays, half days, part-time patterns, and ledger-profile settings are accounted for. It does not cover error conditions or prerequisite configuration, keeping it short of a 5.

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 definition is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and uses the second sentence for computation details without filler. It is efficient, though not perfectly polished.

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 no annotations, 0% schema descriptions, five parameters, and only three required, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It omits country/region semantics and usage context, though the existing output schema covers return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains `start` and `end` and hints at `ledger` via profile settings. The required `country` parameter and optional `region` parameter are not mentioned at all, leaving significant parameter semantics undocumented.

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 a specific computation: leave days needed between `start` and `end` inclusive, with factors considered. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like `get_year_budget` or `find_bridge_days`, so it misses the top score.

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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name any alternative sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the calculation purpose.

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