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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value by promising returned statute citations, a verification status, and the rule identifier to cite. The one gap is the 'conservative file-by date' — the size of that buffer is never quantified, so the agent cannot explain the margin.

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?

Three tight sentences with the rule core front-loaded, then output behavior, then the citation requirement. Slight redundancy in restating 'Verification status: verified' as both a promise and a value, but no padding otherwise.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is needed: the computation, the fallback, the return content, and the citation ID. The unquantified conservative buffer is the only thing an agent would still have to guess at.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining how notice_delivered_date drives the computation (30 days after delivery) and why omitting it falls back to May 15. That connective meaning is not present in the schema itself.

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?

States a specific subject and precise computation: the Texas property tax protest filing deadline, defined as the later of May 15 or 30 days after notice delivery, rolled past weekends and Texas holidays. It is instantly distinguishable from the calc_* financial siblings and the id_/search utilities without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear operational cue by telling the agent to omit notice_delivered_date when unknown, in which case May 15 is the only basis. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use framing or naming of an alternative tool, but the applicable context is unambiguous.

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