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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain behavior (the 31-month spend-by rule and the 62-month startup extension), but says nothing about what the `disaster` flag changes or what happens when infusions are missing/invalid.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the primary output (spend-by dates per infusion) is front-loaded before the conditional 62-month case. Slightly terse for the amount of undefined behavior it leaves open, but structurally efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape; it does say spend-by dates are produced per infusion, which is the core contract. However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations explaining computation rules, the description is not complete enough to call the tool confidently in the disaster or multi-infusion cases.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It only implicitly explains `startup` (via the 62-month extension); `disaster` and the `infusions` array (date format, amount semantics, whether dates are infusion or deployment dates) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 output (spend-by dates per cash infusion) and the two statutory horizons (31-month safe harbor, 62-month startup outer limit), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling calculators like calc_180_day_deadline or calc_substantial_improvement. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no routing to siblings, despite a crowded family of deadline calculators. The mention of 'start-up businesses' implicitly hints at the `startup` flag, but nothing tells an agent when to prefer this tool over the other calc_* tools.

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