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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioural facts: results are 'sourced' (provenance) and include 'conditional review checkpoints', plus an explicit scope disclaimer about authority and form selection. It says nothing about how many deadlines are returned, whether results are date-sorted, or any jurisdiction caveats.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, so it is size-appropriate. However the front-loaded clause references an undefined 'public calendar', forcing the agent to resolve an opaque comparison before it understands what the tool returns.

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 six required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations describing the result shape, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back. It only vaguely mentions 'dates and conditional review checkpoints' and never explains which inputs condition which checkpoints, leaving an agent unable to predict the response.

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 67% and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all — notably date_of_death, a required input, has no schema description and no mention here. The agent must infer from the enum names which inputs drive which checkpoints; the description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

The description gives a verb ('Return') and a resource ('sourced dates and conditional review checkpoints'), which suggests a deadline/checkpoint lookup, but it defines the output only by reference to 'the public calendar' — a resource the agent cannot see. It never states that the tool computes after-death deadlines from date of death, state, will, spouse, executor status and assets, so the actual purpose is only implied by the title.

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 second sentence gives negative scoping — it does not establish who can act nor select a form — which implicitly routes the agent to siblings like agency_permissions and get_form. But there is no positive statement of when to call this tool versus readiness_checklist or state_rules, so usage is only inferred.

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