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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: a non-throwing error contract with a concrete error payload example, the safety of retrying after correction, and a PREMIUM license cost signal. It does repeat read-only/idempotent from the annotations, but the error and licensing disclosures are the value-add.

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 payoff, then example, then when-to-use, then error behavior. The inline JSON examples are dense but earn their space by showing the per-entry override pattern; a little trimming of formatting would help readability.

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?

Output shape is described (timeline sorted by due_at, first_due, per_regime) even though an output schema exists, and the failure mode is covered. The advanced anchor fields (classification_at, measure_available_at, materiality_determined_at) are only gestured at via 'anchors... shared', leaving their per-regime interaction to the schema.

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 earns above that by explaining override semantics — each regime entry may carry its own event_type and entity_class while anchors and flags are shared across the call. That resolves how the 11 parameters compose, which the flat 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 (merged timeline across several regimes for one incident) and immediately distinguishes itself from the single-regime sibling. The example makes the scope concrete: one incident, multiple regimes, one ordered list.

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?

Explicit positive guidance ('Use when one incident triggers several regimes and the agent needs a single ordered list') plus an explicit negative with a named alternative ('Not for one regime: compute_deadlines is free'). No inference required.

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