find_bridge_days

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that options may overlap and are alternatives, and that the ledger changes results by counting work patterns, half days and local holidays. It does not state that the operation is read-only/side-effect-free or how results are computed, but for a query-style tool this is a reasonable disclosure level.

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 value proposition is front-loaded ('The leave days that buy the most time off, best value first'), and the rest flows logically. It is slightly wasteful because it enumerates returned fields that an output schema already documents, but it remains tight and readable.

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 6-parameter optimization tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves critical inputs (limit, max_leave_days, region) unexplained. It does detail the return shape, but with an output schema present that is redundant, so the net effect is an incomplete definition of how to invoke it correctly.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It explains the role of 'ledger' and implies 'country'/'year', but says nothing about 'limit', 'region', or 'max_leave_days', leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 states the resource and the optimization goal clearly: leave days that buy the most time off, ranked best-value-first. An agent can infer it is a discovery/ranking tool rather than a cost calculator. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like get_holiday_windows or calculate_leave_cost, so the boundary is left implicit.

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?

There is a single operational hint ('Pass the ledger so the parent's work pattern, half days and local holidays count') but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance against the many siblings. The 'options can overlap -- they are alternatives' note describes the output, not tool selection. No conditions for choosing this over get_holiday_windows or calculate_leave_cost are given.

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