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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds real behavioral context: statute citation is included, holidays fall back to U.S. federal holidays, and the state list constrains jurisdiction. It does not explain how 'longProject' changes the result or what happens for unsupported states, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

The core question list is front-loaded and each clause corresponds to an answer the tool returns, so the density is justified rather than wasteful. The four-part question construction is slightly verbose compared with a direct verb-and-resource statement, but nothing is padding.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description needs to convey what the agent gets back, and the question list effectively enumerates the returned deadlines plus statute references. Remaining gaps are the effect of 'longProject' and 'plannedStart' problem reporting, which the description only hints at ('checked for problems').

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 the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics the schema lacks: the default holiday set is U.S. federal holidays and the caller should override with the one-call center's posted list when available. This clarifies the behavior of the 'holidays' parameter beyond its terse schema text.

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?

The description states precisely what the tool computes: the legal dig-start window, utility mark deadline, latest allowable start, and ticket expiration after an 811 locate request, with the governing statute cited. The scope line 'States: MI, OH, TX' bounds it. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'parse_811_ticket', but the question framing makes the computational (not parsing) nature clear.

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?

Usage context is implied by the question list and the state enumeration, and the closing sentence gives conditional guidance on the holidays parameter ('pass the one-call center's posted list when you have it'). However, it never states when not to use this tool or points to an alternative such as parse_811_ticket for raw ticket data, so guidance remains inferred rather than explicit.

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