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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns urgency levels, days remaining, and recommendations and covers specific compliance areas, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, whether any authentication is needed, or how the data is sourced, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence plus a short follow-up listing covered topics. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the zero-parameter, no-output-schema context, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (deadlines with urgency, days remaining, recommendations) and its scope. It doesn't specify the exact data structure or any pagination, but for a simple lookup tool, this is sufficient.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers all parameter information (none). The description adds value by explaining the returned data, and per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'SWIFT/ISO 20022 compliance deadlines' and enriches it with urgency levels, days remaining, and recommendations, making its purpose unmistakable. It also lists covered topics (MT retirement, structured addresses, MiCA enforcement), which differentiates it from sibling tools like mica_cross_check or check_structured_address that focus on specific areas.

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?

The description clearly implies it's the tool for retrieving compliance deadlines, listing relevant topics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it for deadline queries, though it lacks the explicit alternative guidance seen in top-tier examples.

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