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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and destructive annotations, the description discloses that the content check is a keyword heuristic, that timing compares submitted_at with due_at, that invalid input returns an error object rather than raising a protocol error, and that retrying is safe after corrections. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 dense but organized: purpose first, then a worked example, behavior, limitations, errors, and retry safety. Every sentence earns its place and adds operational value without filler.

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 the rich annotations and output schema, the description still adds essential context—heuristic limitation, error contract, licensing, timing semantics, and safe retry. For a tool with nested report objects and optional timing fields, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value: a concrete typical input mapping regime/obligation/report, links due_at to compute_deadlines, and explains submitted_at's role in timing. It does not elaborate on event_type, but the schema already documents it.

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 specific action and object: 'Check a draft report against the statutory content list and its deadline.' This clearly identifies the resource, the validation logic, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like classify_event or compute_deadlines.

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 explicitly says 'Use before a report is sent' and warns 'Not a legal review, and it cannot judge quality, only presence.' This gives clear when and when-not guidance. It does not name sibling alternatives for other validation tasks, so it stops short of an explicit alternatives matrix.

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