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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries behavioral burden. It discloses that deadlines on records marked review_required are unconfirmed and must be shown as such—an important data-quality caveat. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or mutating, nor does it mention rate limits or pagination.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core retrieval purpose and followed by a concrete usage phrase and caveat. Every sentence earns its place with 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 supplies sufficient expectations: it enumerates the returned fields (deadline, form/portal, fee, citation) and flags the unconfirmed-deadline behavior. It is missing only explicit read-only/mutation clarity and any authentication or rate-limit context.

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 schema already documents the single state parameter fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb+resource: retrieving every requirement in a US state that has a filing deadline, along with deadline, form/portal, fee, and citation. It also gives an explicit usage cue ('what is due and when'), distinguishing it conceptually from broader siblings like get_state_requirements and compare_states.

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?

It provides clear context for use via 'Use this for what is due and when,' but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use get_state_requirements or compare_states instead). The guidance is strong but not fully comparative.

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