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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'list,' such as pagination, sorting, or scope limitations. Since annotations cover the read-only nature, the description is adequate but does not enhance transparency beyond that.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word earns its place. There is no wasted space or redundancy.

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 simple read-only listing tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. The agent can infer the behavior from the description and schema. However, it does not clarify what 'upcoming' means beyond the 'days' parameter (which the schema covers), and it doesn't mention any ordering or filtering defaults beyond what the schema provides. Still, given the low complexity, it is sufficient.

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% (both 'days' and 'province' have descriptions), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning or usage details for the parameters; it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List contracts with upcoming closing deadlines.' It is not a tautology, and it gives the core action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_deadlines or list_alberta_deadlines, which likely serve similar purposes, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., list_deadlines, list_alberta_deadlines, daily_bid_brief). There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this specific tool is appropriate.

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