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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which the description is consistent with. Beyond that it discloses real behavioral context an agent can't get from annotations: business-day counting excludes weekends and RCW 1.16.050 holidays, dates are form DEFAULTS derived from public rules rather than NWMLS data, results flag non-business-day landings, and both the attributions array and the professional-advice disclaimer must be passed through to users.

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 core computation and the covered forms, then the business-day rule, then caveats. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight (jurisdiction, defaults, pass-through requirements); a slightly tighter phrasing of the attributions/disclaimer directive would earn a 5.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be spelled out, yet the description still calls out the two user-facing pass-through obligations (attributions, professional-advice disclaimer). For a rules-based read-only calculator, nothing an agent needs to invoke or relay results correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema and that sets the baseline at 3. The description adds conceptual context (defaults vs. executed-contract terms, business-day arithmetic) but no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema supplies.

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 ('Compute') and a clearly defined resource (the standard NWMLS deadline set from a mutual-acceptance date), and enumerates the exact forms covered (21, 17, 22T, 35, 22A, 22E). No sibling tool computes deadlines, so it is unambiguous against the wa_* analytics tools.

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 a clear applicability boundary ('Washington/NWMLS transactions only') and a methodological directive ('never plain calendar arithmetic'), which tells the agent when this tool rather than generic date math is appropriate. It stops short of naming alternatives or enumerating when-not-to-use beyond the jurisdiction limit.

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