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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: the result comes from the same engine as AdvisorIQ's CE calculator, unconfirmed rules are refused rather than estimated, and the response includes deadline and days left. The refusal-not-estimate guarantee is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs to trust the output.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and output shape, then proceeds through the per-designation input rules and the FINRA exclusion. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but nearly every clause carries actionable information; only the engine-provenance aside is strictly optional.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (amount owed, deadline, days left) and what happens on unconfirmed rules. Combined with the per-designation input rules, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly across CFP, CIMA, CPWA, RMA, American College and IAR cases.

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 already documents all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by giving concrete period_ends syntax ({"CFP": "2027-06"} or full YYYY-MM-DD, American College forced to Dec 31) and explaining why state is only relevant for IAR, adding meaning beyond the schema text.

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 (calculate) and resource (CE owed for a set of designations) and immediately frames the output as amount + deadline + days left. It is clearly separable from the sibling ce_requirements, which returns requirements rather than computed amounts.

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?

Explicitly states an exclusion and routes the agent elsewhere: 'FINRA is not calculated... use ce_requirements.' It also names the conditions that change the call (IAR needs the registration state, American College periods always end December 31), so an agent knows which inputs a given designation demands.

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