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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate the key calculation options: calendar vs business days, start-date counting, and rolling to next or previous business day. However, it largely paraphrases schema fields and omits details such as the output format, error handling, or the exact role of the state parameter.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the three key distinguishing features without any filler or redundancy. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's behavior easy to grasp quickly.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main calculation rules, but it does not specify the return value representation, behavior on invalid inputs, or how to select this tool over its siblings. While sufficient for basic invocation, an agent would benefit from more explicit guidance.

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 structured schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds only high-level references to the start-date counting rule and rolling behavior, which correspond to include_start_date and roll_if_non_business_day. This meets the baseline but doesn't provide additional semantic depth beyond the schema.

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's function: calculating an Australian deadline with configurable calendar or business day counting, a start-date counting rule, and optional rolling behavior. This specific verb and resource make the purpose obvious, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling calculate_australian_business_date beyond the deadline-specific context.

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 the tool should be used for Australian deadline calculations but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings like calculate_australian_business_date or count_australian_business_days. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name and schema.

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