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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that deadlines differ by case type and that the agent must never answer from memory, which informs expected behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose and examples, explicit when-to-use, and a critical caution about not answering from memory. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it states inputs, outputs, and usage context. It could add a note about returning a list of all procedures when procedure_name is omitted, but the schema already conveys this.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including enum values, the optional procedure_name, and the behavior when omitted. The description adds context like 'by case type' and example procedure names, but this does not substantially go beyond the structured 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 names a specific action ('Look up Iranian procedural deadlines') with concrete examples (مهلت تجدیدنظر، واخواهی) and states the output includes governing law and article. It is clearly distinct from sibling calculators and article lookups, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling like lookup_statute_of_limitations.

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 when the user asks how long they have for a procedural step,' giving clear invocation guidance. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the condition is sufficiently specific for an agent to route correctly.

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