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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the doubling mechanic ('extends ... by that time again, once for each time'), that time is never shortened, the pre-expiry timing constraint, credential, cost, and rule source. Missing only idempotency/return behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the doubling clause ('by that time again, once for each time') is convoluted and the metadata tail (Credential/Cost/Source) is boilerplate. It is readable but carries avoidable redundancy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, the description should do more: it explains behavior adequately but leaves the required 'ref' parameter and the return/effect unaddressed, so an agent cannot fully call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters but only partially does: 'Credential: token' identifies token's role, while 'ref' is never described or linked to a charge/matter identifier. A required, completely undocumented parameter leaves a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('extends') and resource ('the time now running against you') plus the exact legal context (to appear or answer a grave-wrongs charge). An agent can distinguish it from answer_grave_wrongs_charge and appear_grave_wrongs, though the first-person framing and legalese add noise.

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?

'if you ask before it runs' gives an implied timing precondition, so usage context exists. However it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not guidance relative to simply answering or appearing, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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