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

With readOnlyHint=true, the tool is known to be read-only, and the description adds value by outlining the scope of computed deadlines (discovery, motion, expert, summary judgment) and the optional county-specific local rules. It does not detail computational assumptions or limitations (e.g., whether it accounts for court holidays), but given annotations cover read-only nature, this is sufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core action ('Work backward from a California civil trial date to the pretrial deadlines') and listing the key outputs in a sentence. It then adds the optional county feature in a second sentence. No fluff, each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple deadlines, optional county logic, and a service_method with 6 service types), the description covers the main outputs and optional parameters well. It doesn't explain the legal basis or what exactly 'section 437c rows' are, but for an AI agent specializing in legal deadlines, this is probably sufficient. With no output schema, the description could state the return structure, but the listed deadlines give a clear overview.

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 parameters are well documented in the schema. The description adds context for the 'county' parameter (adds local-rule deadlines) and 'service_method' (used for summary judgment rows), which aligns with the schema. It doesn't describe 'set_date' beyond the schema's 'some local rules count from,' but that is adequate. Overall, the description complements the schema without redundancy.

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 computes various California pretrial deadlines by working backward from a trial date, listing specific deadlines (discovery cutoff, motion cutoff, expert exchange, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like california_discovery_response_deadline and california_summary_judgment_deadlines, which focus on specific deadlines, whereas this is a comprehensive countdown tool.

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 indicates when to use it (when you need a comprehensive set of pretrial deadlines from a trial date), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for more specific needs. The existence of sibling tools focused on single deadline types (e.g., discovery response, summary judgment) implies the alternatives, but that exclusion isn't spelled out.

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