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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it shifts the deadline past weekends and holidays, reports what suspends the period, and returns the earlier date where the interpretation is uncertain — real output semantics an agent could not infer from annotations.

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 tight sentences: the first defines what is computed and the scope, the second covers weekend/holiday shifting and suspending events, the third covers the uncertainty fallback. Front-loaded and waste-free, especially good given the dense legal domain.

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 12-parameter legal calculator with no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral outcomes (adjusted end date, suspending events, conservative earlier date on doubt). It does not explain that most parameters are conditional per typ, but the schema documents that fully, so the gap is minor.

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's enumeration of claim types loosely mirrors the typ enum, and it names the qualifying conditions 'typ' and 'usmysl'... rather, 'typ' and 'umysl', but adds no syntax or date-formatting information beyond what the schema already documents thoroughly.

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+resource: computes when a claim becomes time-barred under the Czech civil code, and enumerates the exact claim types covered (pohledávka, faktura, škoda, újma na zdraví, obohacení, rozhodnutí, uznaný dluh). This separates it cleanly from siblings like lhuta or exekutorsky_tarif.

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 makes the domain of use evident (limitation/expiry of a claim) but never says when to choose this tool over lhuta or the other legal siblings, nor states prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guidance given.

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