Производственный календарь РФ

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), it discloses non-obvious behavior: data source isdayoff.ru, no token required, one-day cache, and the failure mode when the next year's transfer decree hasn't been issued (typically autumn). These are exactly the operational traits an agent can't infer from structured fields.

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 first sentence front-loads the resource and the mode split, then usage, then operational caveats. It is dense and somewhat long, but nearly every clause carries information; only the enumerated return-field list borders on verbose for a description.

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 output schema, the description must carry return-shape information, and it does for both modes. Combined with source, cache, auth, and error behavior, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it enumerates what month produces (work_days, days_off, hours_40h_week, short_days, holidays_on_weekdays, working_weekends) versus what omitting it produces (year totals plus a 12-month table). That goes beyond the schema's terse 'Месяц 1–12' labels.

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 resource (Производственный календарь РФ) with scope qualifiers (федеральный, с переносами по постановлению Правительства) and the two modes (месяц/год). It explicitly names the sibling work_days_calc as the different tool, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either 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?

Gives concrete use cases (норма часов, зарплата, отпускные, графики) and names the alternative explicitly: to add N working days or count working days between dates, use work_days_calc. It also states the when-not condition — if next year's calendar isn't published yet, an error is returned.

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