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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the tool deliberately refuses to fabricate a deadline and requires both a valid starting point and an applicable RulePack. No contradiction with 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?

Two dense sentences, no filler. The main behavior and constraint are front-loaded, and every clause adds signal.

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?

Despite strong annotations and an output schema, the tool accepts a large DeliveryFacts object with 24 undocumented properties. The description explains the core legal gate but does not guide the agent on which facts are relevant, how 'RulePack' is determined, or what constitutes a valid starting point. This is thin for the complexity involved.

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 0%, and the description does not mention 'facts', 'as_of', or any individual schema field. It provides domain-level concepts that map conceptually to fields like contract_resolved_under_l216_6 and contract_date, but it does not help the agent know which parameters to populate or how.

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 verb ('Calcule'), a precise resource ('le repère de quatorze jours'), and a narrow condition ('résolution explicitement confirmée au titre de l'article L216-6'). This clearly differentiates it from broader sibling tools like score_dossier or route_case.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: only for the fourteen-day benchmark after an explicit L216-6 resolution. It also states the negative condition ('Sans point de départ valide ou RulePack applicable... aucun délai n'est inventé'), though it does not name alternative sibling tools.

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