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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the meaning of each date (bureau read, delinquency line) and the ordering logic, which helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose (upcoming dates in order) and immediately provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 has an output schema (not shown but indicated) and detailed parameter schema, the description covers the essential context: what events are returned, their order, and the primary use case. It does not need to explain return values or edge cases beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage across all parameters, including detailed explanations for each field. The description itself does not repeat parameter details or add new semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate—the schema carries the load.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it lists upcoming dates (pay, statement close, due) in a specific order and explicitly says when to use it ('when someone asks about timing, what is coming up, or why the closing date differs from the due date'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_statement_close_date by addressing comparative timing questions.

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 provides explicit use cases ('when someone asks about timing, what is coming up, or why the closing date differs from the due date'), making it clear when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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