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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail the annotations lack: sort order ('soonest first'), the restricted scope ('active matters'), and the returned fields (forum, bench, case number, stage).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the ordering and return fields. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the ordering, which is what an agent most needs. Minor gaps remain (e.g., behavior when no hearings fall in range), but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single 'days' parameter is fully documented with range and default. The description only restates the 1–90 bound and default 30, adding no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Precise verb+resource ('Lists hearings') with an explicit scope qualifier ('institution's active matters', 'next N days'). It is distinguishable from deadline-oriented siblings like deadline_watch and panel_deadline_tracker by resource, though it never names or contrasts them directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('active matters', 'upcoming hearings') but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative is named for the adjacent deadline/schedule siblings. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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