Компенсация за неиспользованный отпуск

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered; the description adds real behavioral content beyond them: the 28-days-per-year proportional accrual, the 'more than half = full month' rounding rule, and that average daily earnings are computed as in vacation_pay. It does not state rate limits or error behavior, keeping it short of 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?

A single tightly packed paragraph that front-loads the computation rules and ends with the scope limit 'Только вычисление'. The nested parentheticals make it dense but no sentence is wasted.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and a pure-computation tool, the description names the outputs (days, sum, NDFL, net) and the derivation fallbacks, which is enough for correct invocation. It could still clarify the sibling boundary versus vacation_pay.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: 'days' is derived from worked_months when omitted, and it supplies the month-rounding rule ('больше половины — целый') that governs worked_months/full_months and is absent from the schema descriptions.

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: computes unused-vacation compensation on dismissal, returning entitled days plus amount, NDFL and net pay. It is clearly distinct from vacation_pay and salary_calc, though it never explicitly frames that contrast — it only says the average-earnings method matches vacation_pay.

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?

Implies usage through conditions ('если дни не заданы явно' days come from worked_months) and scopes behavior with 'Только вычисление', but never says when to pick this tool over vacation_pay or salary_calc. The agent must infer the routing.

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