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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: no API key, no cost, public non-advisory nature, and that every item carries its official source and a 'Verify with the official source' marker. That is meaningful disclosure about result trustworthiness.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the resource and contents, then inputs, then caveats. Every clause carries information, though the source/verify/disclaimer tail is slightly repetitive.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing returns (items with source and verify marker). Inputs, deliverable, and limits are covered for a simple read-only lookup; minor gap is no explicit statement of what happens when no date is supplied.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline would be 3, but the description adds the causal link between inputs and output ('give grantDate or firstSaleDate to count the due date') and clarifies which parameter maps to which deadline. It goes beyond restating the schema.

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 concrete verb+resource ('A small public calendar of statutory dates') and enumerates the three exact items returned (83(b), Form D, Delaware franchise tax), which no sibling covers. It's clear and specific, though the framing is more content-list than action statement.

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?

It tells the agent what to supply ('Give grantDate or firstSaleDate to count the due date') but never states when to reach for this tool versus other lookups or what it is not for, beyond the generic 'not advice' disclaimer. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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