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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds a content inventory (which dates are returned), which is the useful extra given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about return format or ordering.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core identity ('The program calendar') is front-loaded. It is telegraphic rather than well-formed prose, which slightly weakens readability but costs nothing in length.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive static reference tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what category of data and which specific dates. Only the shape of the response (list vs. prose, date formatting) is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics for a parameterless reference tool.

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 the specific resource ('the program calendar') and enumerates the contents (OZ 1.0 inclusion date, OZ 2.0 start, designation periods, filing dates), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from date-adjacent siblings like calc_2026_inclusion or calc_180_day_deadline, but the static-vs-computed distinction is inferable.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs fixed program dates. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no reference to the calculator siblings that also surface dates (calc_2026_inclusion, calc_180_day_deadline), which is the main ambiguity risk.

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