年次有給休暇の付与日・付与日数を計算

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it calculates based on legal minimum, handles uniform method with chain of early grants, and validates a lower bound date. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but as a calculation tool, that is implied.

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 description is a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It is concise without waste, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points for return values) could improve 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?

The description covers core calculation and two methods, and mentions return values (grant date, days, shortened period for uniform). However, without an output schema, it lacks details on the exact format of the response, which is needed for a 7-parameter tool.

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 the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. The description provides some behavioral context for parameters (e.g., the lower bound check) but does not enhance individual parameter understanding significantly.

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 clearly states the tool calculates annual paid leave entitlement (grant date and days) based on hire date and reference date method, distinguishing between individual and uniform methods. It is distinct from sibling tools like check_attendance_rate or list_grant_schedule.

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?

The description implies usage through its purpose but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or context for choosing this over sibling tools.

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