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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the actual computation rules (high=180, medium=365, low=730 days), which is real behavioral value, but it says nothing about the return format, the base date that 'next' is measured from, or whether the call has any side effects.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action, the input, and the output mapping are all packed in without waste.

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 single-parameter pure lookup this is close to adequate, and the value-to-days mapping is complete. Gaps remain: the reference point for 'next' (today?) and the return type (ISO string vs. date object) are unspecified, and with no output schema the description should have closed those.

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 lists the three accepted strings, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the mapping of each risk value to its concrete review interval in days. That is genuine value beyond the structured field.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Return the next review date for a risk level,' with the scope narrowed by the risk input. It is plainly distinct from siblings like assess_workplace and list_hazards, though it never names them or explicitly contrasts itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a lookup used to schedule the next review, but there is no statement of when to call it versus assess_workplace, documentation, or list_hazards, and no preconditions or exclusions.

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