Расчёт сроков в рабочих днях

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: 'Только чтение, без токена' confirms the read-safe profile and adds an auth fact (no token needed) that readOnlyHint alone does not convey, and the note that next year's calendar only appears after the Government decree discloses a genuine data-availability limitation. The read-only phrase is somewhat redundant with readOnlyHint, keeping it from 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 two operations are front-loaded and each clause carries information: operation split, examples, negative-N direction, inclusive counting, holiday/transfer handling and calendar-availability caveat — with no filler sentences.

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 simple two-operation calculator with no output schema, it covers operations, domain, directionality, inclusivity, calendar limitations and the no-token fact. It never states what each operation returns (a date vs. a day count) or out-of-range/invalid-date behavior, which is the remaining gap given the absence of an output 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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description still adds meaning the schema lacks: negative N moves backward, and `between` counts days 'включительно' (inclusive) — an inclusive/exclusive decision not stated in the schema.

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?

Names both operations concretely (add / between) with their exact semantics, resource (RF production calendar) and example contexts (payment, delivery, claim deadlines). Very clear what it does, but it never distinguishes itself from the overlapping sibling work_calendar, which is the main thing an agent must disambiguate.

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 for `add` (срок оплаты, поставки, ответа на претензию) and clarifies the negative-N direction, which tells the agent when the tool applies. It stops short of any exclusion or explicit alternative (e.g. when to prefer work_calendar or late_payment_penalty instead), so no 'when-not' guidance.

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