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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read-only, closed-world computation, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral substance beyond that: it discloses the deadline rule (11:59 p.m., third business day, skipping weekends and BC statutory holidays) and the fee rate, which tells the agent exactly what the output means. It stops short of describing the output shape or edge cases such as holidays falling on the boundary.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core subject front-loaded, followed by the two outputs. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause (date rule, holiday exclusion, fee rate) carries information.

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, closed-world calculator with no output schema, the definition provides enough to call it correctly and understand what the results represent. A slight gap remains: it does not state the output fields or what happens if the acceptance date is a weekend/holiday, but this is minor for a computation this simple.

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 already explains the price is used for the 0.25% fee and the date format. The description restates the 0.25% rate and the counting rule but adds little per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific legal/financial computation (BC home buyer rescission period) and states both results it produces: the deadline and the 0.25% fee. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bc_home_flipping_tax or land_transfer_tax, which are different BC-specific calculators.

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 implied by the stated inputs (a date of acceptance and an accepted price), so an agent can infer it is used after an offer is accepted. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention that this applies only to BC residential resale purchases, and no named alternatives.

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