Отпускные

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description reinforces this with 'Только вычисление'. It adds real behavioral context beyond annotations by naming the returned fields (average_daily, gross, ndfl, net) and the statutory payment-deadline rule, though it omits units/format for the returns.

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 legal basis and formula, then returns, then caveats and the sibling pointer. It is dense and each sentence carries information (deadline, alternative, indexation), though the opening formula sentence is long and could be split for readability.

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 helpfully enumerates the return fields, and with annotations covering safety and a fully documented 5-param schema, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly. Only the format/units of the returned values remain unstated.

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 by warning that salary indexation during the calculation period must be folded into earnings_12m by the caller. That is a non-obvious semantic constraint not present in the schema, lifting it 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?

States a specific resource (vacation pay / отпускные) with its governing legal basis and the exact computation it performs, including the formula. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling unused_vacation_compensation, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Routes the agent explicitly to unused_vacation_compensation for dismissal compensation and closes with 'Только вычисление' to signal a pure calculation with no side effects. It does not, however, state when to prefer salary_calc or ndfl_calc over this tool, so alternative coverage is partial rather than exhaustive.

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