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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds the useful operational detail that unattributable-network events are deliberately excluded rather than guessed, plus a calendar subscription pointer. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though return shape is not covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, caveat, alternatives, and scope in a tight sequence. Slightly dense with the calendar link and multiple alternative references, but every sentence carries 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, filtering semantics, network options, and routing to siblings. The main remaining gap is the return format, which no output schema supplies, but overall it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 'next N days' horizon and the network values, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 verb and resource ('Canton operational deadlines coming up') and enumerates the event types (upgrades, minimum-version raises, topology freezes, Logical Synchronizer Upgrades) with a per-network scope. An agent can distinguish this from get_sv_schedule or get_upgrade_status without opening a schema.

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 an explicit usage framing ('what do I have to do in the next N days') plus named alternatives with selecting conditions: get_upgrade_status for a personal version verdict, get_sv_schedule for the full historical schedule. Also scopes to Canton ecosystem only.

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