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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so credit goes to genuinely additive context: it discloses the licensing/auth model ('Free; no account or subscription required') and an important scope boundary (no individual waiver determination is inferred). It stops short of describing what the plan output or date computation looks like.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the licensing note and the waiver caveat each earning their place. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 regulatory-deadline planning tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves real gaps: it does not say what the plan returns (computed dates?), how the enums affect the result, or when denial_notice_date matters. The waiver caveat helps, but an agent still cannot predict the response shape.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only partially does. 'Self-attest coverage and extension/waiver status' maps loosely onto scope_confirmed, extension_status, and waiver_status, but it never explains the enum values (e.g. 'unknown' vs 'requested') or the role of the optional denial_notice_date.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource combination ('Plan Minnesota PFAS initial product-reporting dates') and even cites the authoritative source ('reviewed current MPCA guidance'). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings (NDIS SDA, UK packaging EPR, register/record tools), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 states what the tool does not do ('an individual waiver determination is not inferred') but gives no positive when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool to call for Minnesota PFAS date planning rather than, say, a general register reader.

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