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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares deterministic arithmetic with no AI, discloses the EPA interval source, and explicitly disclaims compliance judging. It omits auth needs, error/failure behavior, and what an invalid record report looks like.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and disclaimers following. Slight redundancy between the two 'it does not...' clauses, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter, read-only compute tool with no output schema, the description conveys the operation, its deterministic nature, and its limits. It could say more about the shape of the returned findings, but otherwise an agent has enough to 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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the as_of 'treat this date as today' semantics and the event object shape. The description adds the EPA-interval context but no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (check) and resource (septic system service events), then adds the secondary computation (next inspection and pump-out window). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_events or get_record_summary, which mutate or summarize rather than validate.

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?

Gives explicit scope boundaries — it does not judge compliance and does not know local code — which tells the agent when its output is not authoritative. It does not, however, route to a sibling tool or state prerequisites for calling it.

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