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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile. The description adds real value beyond them: each deadline carries its governing rule, official source and date-checked, and unconfirmed deadlines are withheld but counted, which tells the agent about filtering and completeness behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by filter semantics. Every clause carries information, though the enum explanations make the second sentence heavy.

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 only three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return payload (rule, source, date checked) and the default date behavior. It is largely complete, with only sibling differentiation left unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by expanding the applies_to enum values with human meaning (ria, iar, rep, 13f, private_funds) and restating the from/to defaults, adding semantic context the raw schema does not.

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 and resource: confirmed regulatory and CE deadlines for advisers and firms within a date range. The scope is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings ce_requirements or ce_calculate, leaving the agent to infer the difference between 'deadlines' and 'requirements'.

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?

Implies usage via the default date range and the applies_to filter, and notes that unconfirmed deadlines are withheld. However, it never says when to choose this over ce_requirements or ce_calculate, so the alternative-selection guidance is left to inference.

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