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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, but the description adds important operational semantics: UTC calendar-date comparison, counting rather than guessing invalid dates, and default candidate-label heuristics. It does not discuss response shape, but an output schema exists, so this is strong supplementary disclosure.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, followed by field-selection guidance and scope exclusions. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no repetition.

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 six-parameter, annotation-backed, output-schema-bearing tool, the description covers when to use it, how default candidates are selected, how to override fields, date-handling edge cases, and what it explicitly is not. No material calling gap remains.

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 67%, so the schema already documents daysAhead, locationIds, and locationLimit. The description adds useful meaning for fieldKeys by distinguishing default candidate labels from exact known field keys, though it does not explain includeOverdue or locationOffset beyond what the schema provides.

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: reviewing upcoming/overdue license or document expiration dates stored in location DATE/DATETIME fields. It also draws a clear boundary against document-repository scans and inferred legal deadlines, so an agent can distinguish it from related location-review siblings.

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?

Begins with an explicit 'Use when' condition, explains default candidate selection by expiry/renewal/valid-until labels, and tells the agent to pass fieldKeys for known fields. It also names what the tool is not, which is exactly the exclusion guidance an agent needs.

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