Больничный

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the entire calculation logic (two-year earnings capped by the base limit, /730 floor at MROT×24/730, seniority tiers, 3-day employer split) and the set of returned fields, confirming no side effects.

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?

Front-loaded with the formula and scope, then exclusions, then return values. It is a single dense paragraph but every clause carries a rule the agent needs; 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned values (average_daily, per_day, employer_part, sfr_part, total, НДФЛ, на руки) and fully specifies the computation, exclusions and scope. An agent has everything needed to call 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantics that drive the parameters: which prior years feed earnings_prev1/prev2, the seniority percentage bands for insurance_years, and the MROT floor that part_time_ratio interacts with.

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 verb and resource: computing the temporary-disability (sick-leave) benefit under 255-FZ, with the exact formula. "Только вычисление" makes clear it is a pure calculation, distinguishing it from payroll mutation tools among the siblings.

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?

Explicitly excludes two adjacent cases: "Больничный по уходу за ребёнком и по беременности считаются иначе — не для них." That is clear when-not guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for those cases, but no sibling covers them, so the omission is minor.

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