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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description still earns credit for disclosing the shape of the answer, including negative results (notice kinds not required and why) and per-notice citations. Nothing contradicts the annotations. It does not say whether output is legal advice or how results vary with as_of, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its output contract, then usage, then a runnable example — a sound order with no filler sentences. The first sentence is heavily parenthetical (two long bracket lists and an em-dash aside), making it dense to parse, but every clause 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?

With 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, this description does the work the structured data cannot: it enumerates the returned fields and explicitly notes that non-required notice kinds are reported with reasons. Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete request example showing how terms and start_date nest, which is genuine meaning beyond the schema. The remaining 7 top-level parameters (as_of, jurisdictions, cycles, price_change, payment_methods, site, plan) are left entirely to 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 specific input contract (plan terms + sign-up date) and a specific output (recommended send date, allowed window, jurisdictions, citations, plus not-required notice kinds and reasons), which is far more than the title alone conveys. It also ties itself to observable sibling behavior ('the same emails as the compliance plan's email tasks'). It stops short of naming near-neighbors like list_due_notices or get_notice_templates, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

"Use it to implement reminder emails / cron jobs correctly" gives a clear when-to-use context, and the worked example shows a realistic invocation. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for the overlapping scheduling/listing tools, so the agent gets direction but not a decision rule.

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