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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: deadlines are derived deterministically, no LLM, no invented dates, and undated entries are not given invented dates. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 informative but slightly verbose. It front-loads the key purpose and adds useful details like determinism and no legal advice. Could be trimmed slightly, but still efficient for the information provided.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: each entry has verbatim text and source URL, undated entries are meta.undated, and it notes the tool returns JSON. This is complete for a calendar tool with no required parameters.

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 baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the 'all' alias for past dates and referencing list_jurisdictions for the jurisdiction parameter. This provides helpful guidance beyond the schema.

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 returns 'upcoming AI-law effective/compliance-date calendar' derived deterministically from a curated corpus. It specifies the tool returns JSON with verbatim deadline text and source URL, distinguishing it from siblings like list_ai_laws which list laws, not deadlines.

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 mentions it's free at every tier and provides an alternative subscription method (iCal feed). It notes undated entries are reported as meta.undated. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs siblings like get_ai_law or list_ai_laws, though context implies it's for deadlines specifically.

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