calculate_work_hours

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions calculation of regular/overtime/double-time hours and gross pay, and lists ruleset details. However, it omits behavioral nuances like rounding options, unpaid break subtraction, overnight shift handling, and workweek-start configuration, which are relevant to the calculation.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists rulesets and a link. It is compact, front-loaded, and contains no redundant content.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides minimal viable context: it states what it calculates and which rulesets are supported. But it leaves parameter semantics and behavioral edge cases unexplained, making it incomplete for a complex 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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'ruleset' parameter by explaining each state's rule and implies 'hourlyRate' and 'entries' through 'gross pay' and 'clock in/out entries'. It does not explain 'rounding', 'unpaidBreakMins', or 'workweekStart', leaving those to the sparse schema.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Calculate regular/overtime/double-time hours and gross pay from clock in/out entries.' It clearly states the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling time_and_a_half by covering multiple jurisdiction-specific rulesets.

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 provides clear context by enumerating available rulesets (federal, california, alaska, colorado, nevada), implying this tool is for jurisdiction-aware payroll calculations. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling time_and_a_half or state when to prefer one over the other, so explicit exclusions are missing.

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