Расчёт сроков в рабочих днях

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: holiday and transfer handling, the caveat that next year's calendar only exists after a Government decree, and that no token is required. It omits return-format/pagination behavior, but for a pure calculation tool that is minor.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the two operations are stated first, then the caveats and the read-only note. Every clause carries information; the only slight redundancy is restating the read-only trait that annotations already provide.

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 read-only, two-mode calculator with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the mechanics, the calendar data source, and its freshness limitation. What is missing is only the shape of the result, which matters less given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already explains every parameter, including the exclusion of the start day and the meaning of the operation enum. The description adds only the negative-N direction hint, which is largely implied by the -1000 minimum, so no lift above baseline.

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 a specific resource (расчёт сроков в рабочих днях) and enumerates both operations, add and between, with their inputs. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling work_calendar, which is the most obvious overlapping alternative.

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?

Concrete use cases are given (срок оплаты, поставки, ответа на претензию; negative N to go backwards) plus a clear split between the add and between modes. There is no explicit exclusion or pointer to a sibling tool, so an agent gets context but no routing guidance.

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