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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context—which it does by disclosing that the result is computed relative to today in New York and includes the statutory citation. It leaves one behavioral gap: with zero required parameters, it never says what happens if neither date is supplied, which is important for a date-relative calculation.

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 core purpose and output are front-loaded, and the caveat is a separate, short closing sentence. The main clause is long and dense, embedding the counting rule and output contents in one run-on sentence, but little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the due date, days remaining, and statute. Its remaining gap is handling of the optional inputs, but for a two-parameter, read-only lookup the coverage is otherwise sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains both fields, including the occupational-condition case. The description reinforces the either/or relationship between date_of_accident and date_of_disablement but adds no format rules and gives no guidance for the ambiguous both-omitted or both-supplied cases.

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 names a specific resource (written notice of injury to the employer) and the exact output (the due date under NY Workers' Compensation Law, days remaining, and the governing statute). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like calculate_aww or get_max_min_rate, which compute benefits or rates rather than a notice deadline.

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?

It gives an explicit applicability constraint ('New York State only') and a disclaimer that it is not a substitute for checking facts, plus it explains the choice between the accident-date and disablement-date branches. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., jurisdictional deadline tools) or stating hard exclusions, so it lands just below the top tier.

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