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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the day-0 convention and the optional roll-forward past weekends/holidays. This goes beyond what annotations state and clarifies computation semantics without contradiction.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add optional behavior. There is zero filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 7 parameters (only 1 required) and an output schema present, the description covers the main behavior adequately. It explains the core computation and optional roll-forward. Minor omissions like the mutual exclusivity of jurisdiction and customHolidays are handled in the schema, so the description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 description adds the 'invoice date = day 0' clarification and the concept of roll-forward, which are not explicitly in the schema's net or roll descriptions. However, this is modest added value since the schema already explains parameters well.

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 a due date for Net-N payment terms, specifying the base (calendar days, invoice date = day 0) and the optional roll-forward behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_days or business_days, which handle different date arithmetic. The verb 'Due date' and resource 'Net-N payment terms' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies a use case for payment terms with optional roll-forward, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like business_days or add_days. There are no exclusions or explicit routing to siblings, leaving the agent to infer context from the Net-N terminology.

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