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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so safety is clear. Description adds valuable behavioral detail: events with unidentifiable networks are excluded (not guessed) to avoid wrong deadlines. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Very concise: 4 sentences, each earning its place. First sentence states main purpose, second usage scenario, third behavioral note, fourth alternatives and scope. No redundant information.

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?

Description covers what the tool returns (types of deadlines), filtering options, network exclusion policy, and alternative tools. No output schema exists, but the description provides adequate context for an agent, though it could mention any pagination or format details.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions (days with min/max/default, environment with options, validator_only boolean). Description mentions 'per network' but does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves Canton operational deadlines (scheduled upgrades, version raises, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings like get_upgrade_status and get_sv_schedule. The verb 'get' and resource 'upcoming deadlines' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states use case ('what do I have to do in the next N days'), environment filtering, and when to use alternatives (get_upgrade_status for version-specific verdict, get_sv_schedule for full history). Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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