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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the counting mechanics (working days vs 24-hour periods), the commencement date, and an important limitation that questions of fact are out of scope.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded, followed by scope limitation and invocation guidance. The dense statutory parenthetical is long but each clause carries substantive meaning, so little is wasted.

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 38-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does indicate the return shape ('each with its deadline and whether it was met'), and the schema fully documents every parameter. It stops short of explaining how the many optional parameters interrelate, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 every one of the 38 parameters is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the conceptual role of the three required inputs and the working-day/24-hour distinction, but no syntax or value details beyond the schema.

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 verb (Checks) and resource (Awaab's Law timescales) with statutory grounding and enumerates exactly what is assessed: investigation, written summary, safety work, alternative accommodation and preventative work, each against its deadline. It is unmistakably distinct from the calculation siblings (civil court fees, CPR deadlines, deemed service).

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 clear invocation guidance: 'Give the hazard, the timescale (track) and the date the landlord became aware; add later dates to check each step,' and sets a scope boundary ('It does not decide whether a hazard is significant or an emergency'). It does not name an alternative tool or when-not-to-use, but no sibling overlaps this domain.

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