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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by describing a pure computation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema: it discloses the legal rules applied (section 1013, 1010.6, AB 540, 12a), the date-rollover behavior (weekends and judicial holidays), and the critical temporal cutoff for electronic service. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and then packs in the legal nuance without waste. Every clause earns its place: the discovery types, the service-method dependency, the AB 540 exception, and the holiday rollover are all covered in one efficient sentence.

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 pure computation tool with 100% schema coverage and readOnlyHint=true, the description is nearly complete. It covers the legal basis, the key exceptions, and the output behavior (rolling to the next business day). It doesn't explicitly state the output format (e.g., a date string), but with no output schema and a clear computation described, an agent can infer the result is a date. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that the result is a date, but this is easily inferred.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that service_method is what the extensions 'key to' and by clarifying the electronic service date cutoff. It also explains the served_date semantics ('the date the discovery was served on you'). This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Compute'), a precise resource ('responses to California written discovery'), and enumerates the three discovery types covered. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact legal sections applied (1013, 1010.6, AB 540, 12a), making its scope unmistakable.

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 clearly explains what inputs are needed (served date and service method) and how the computation works, including the key distinction for electronic service before/after January 1, 2027. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool versus siblings, but the specificity of 'written discovery responses' and the sibling names (motion deadlines, response to complaint, etc.) make the intended use case clear.

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