Производственный календарь РФ

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that no token/auth is required, which is genuinely new information, but it does not disclose pagination, return shape, or the fact that range is bounded (2013-2030) — that constraint lives only in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the returned data, with no filler. The enumeration is dense but each clause carries information, and the read-only/no-token note is appropriately placed last.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates the returned content so the missing output schema is largely compensated. Minor gaps remain around the supported year range and the year-vs-month return distinction, though both are recoverable from the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including that omitting month returns the whole year by month. The description restates the year/month scope without adding syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and scope (Russian production calendar for a year or month) plus the exact data it returns: working/weekend/holiday day counts, shortened pre-holiday days, 40-hour-week hour norms, and transfer days. An agent can tell what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling work_days_calc, which appears to overlap in purpose.

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 through the intended scenarios (payroll, vacation pay, deadlines, schedules), which gives an agent a reasonable sense of when to reach for it. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative work_days_calc, so selection between the two siblings is left to inference.

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