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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each entry carries a legal source and days remaining, and 'Free' signals no auth/payment requirement — useful context — but nothing about pagination or result volume.

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: what it returns, how to filter, and cost. Front-loaded with the resource and payload, with no filler.

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-required-param, read-only listing tool with fully documented schema and annotations, the description covers payload shape and filtering adequately. The one omission is disambiguation from the singular sibling tool, which matters for correct tool selection.

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%, with formats (YYYY-MM-DD), enum values (upcoming/applies), and examples (CBAM, EUDR) all in the schema. The description restates the same filter set at a coarser level without adding syntax or edge-case semantics, so the baseline 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?

States a specific resource (dated EU compliance deadlines) plus the returned fields (legal source, days remaining) and supported filters. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling 'eu_compliance_deadline' (singular), leaving ambiguity about list vs. single-deadline lookup.

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 lists filter dimensions ('Filter by law, status or date range') but never says when to choose this tool over the singular sibling 'eu_compliance_deadline' or when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the plural 'deadlines' framing.

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