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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deadlines differ by case type and that the tool returns the governing law and article, which is useful. However, it does not explain the exact output format (e.g., structured list vs. narrative), what happens when procedure_name is omitted, or any error conditions. It adds some behavioral context but is not exhaustive.

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 sentence communicates purpose, scope, and output; the second gives a clear usage rule. It is front-loaded, concise, and every clause earns its place. No filler or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, one enum, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how to use it, and a caution about case-type variability. It lacks explicit mention of the return structure when listing all procedures, but the schema hints at that behavior. Overall it is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the 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%, with both parameters well-described. The description adds a bit of semantic flavor by listing example procedural names in Persian, but this is largely redundant given the schema already documents the enum for case_type and examples for procedure_name. The description does not provide significant new meaning beyond the 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 specific action: 'Look up Iranian procedural deadlines' and clarifies the resource (procedural deadlines), the governing law/article returned, and the filtering by case type. It provides examples of procedural types and differentiates the tool from siblings like lookup_statute_of_limitations by focusing on procedural deadlines specifically.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use when the user asks how long they have for a procedural step' and warns against answering from memory. It clearly states when to use the tool but does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, such as when statute of limitations would be more appropriate.

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