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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a deterministic statutory calculation citing specific articles, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not state the output form, how the PRC vs CISG regimes are selected, or whether either can be queried independently.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler; the core action and its legal basis are front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (e.g., deadline dates, a computed window) and how defect_type modifies the calculation. It leaves the return shape and the PRC/CISG interaction unexplained, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the apparent/hidden enum for defect_type. The description adds no syntax, format, or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (calculates) and specific resources (statutory inspection deadlines and statute of repose), anchored to named legal sources (PRC Civil Code Art. 621, CISG Art. 38/39). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like sino_defect_notice or sino_defect_notice, though the distinct naming and legal-deadline framing make it reasonably separable.

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 never says when to invoke this tool versus sino_defect_notice or the other Sino siblings, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., which legal regime governs, contract context). Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose statement.

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