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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is legacy, limited to federal CanadaBuys deadlines, and should be deprioritized for combined data. It does not describe return format or pagination, but the added scope and deprecation context are meaningful.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The legacy status and scope limitation are front-loaded, followed immediately by the routing advice, making the definition easy to scan.

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 list tool with full parameter coverage in the schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly: purpose, scope, and the preferred alternative. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here.

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%, and both parameters (days, province) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: 'federal CanadaBuys closing deadlines only.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_deadlines, which covers combined CanadaBuys and Alberta APC results. An agent can identify exactly what this tool returns without opening the 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?

It names the preferred alternative (list_deadlines) and the condition that selects it ('for combined CanadaBuys and Alberta APC results'). The 'Legacy' label further signals that this tool should generally be avoided unless federal-only deadlines are specifically needed.

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