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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it uses the real factory shutdown rather than the statutory holiday, and it reports both collision status and the latest avoiding order date. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the calculation approach and then specify the two outputs, with no filler or repetition of schema details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core algorithm, the main outputs, and the key CNY nuance, which is enough for an agent to understand the tool despite no output schema. It does not detail return formatting or edge cases, but the schema handles inputs and defaults, so the definition is reasonably complete.

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 schema already documents mode, arrival_date, transit_days, and production_days adequately. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond tying 'date stock is needed' to arrival_date, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific operation—working backwards from the required stock date to the latest China order date—and explicitly defines the two outputs: whether the plan collides with the CNY closure and the latest safe order date. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like estimate_landed_cost and compare_sea_and_air.

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 communicates its context: planning China orders around the actual CNY factory shutdown. It does not name alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but no sibling tool directly competes for this task, so the context is sufficient.

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