Check ADA / Section 504 web accessibility deadlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return shape (binding-now vs. upcoming items, days remaining, a primary source URL per date) and the temporal scope (1990 statute through 2027/2028 rules). It omits whether results are cached/static, whether 'as_of' shifts the binding classification, and any caveat about not being legal advice — meaningful gaps for a compliance-reference tool.

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 purpose and output contents are front-loaded, then the entity-type list closes it out. Slightly dense in the middle ('what is binding now, what is upcoming within the horizon with days remaining, and the primary source URL for every date'), but every clause conveys useful information and there is no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — and it does, including the binding/upcoming split and source URLs. Remaining gaps are modest: the default and maximum for horizon_years, and what an 'unknown' entity_type yields, are not addressed anywhere.

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 67%, and the description compensates by enumerating seven of the eight entity_type enum values (omitting 'unknown', which is a real gap since that value's behavior is undocumented) and by implying horizon_years is a look-ahead window over which 'upcoming' items are reported. The as_of parameter's default is already covered by 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 verb and resource ('return the dated web accessibility obligations that apply to an entity type') and scopes it to named legal sources and date ranges. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (audit_html_snippet, lookup_wcag_criterion, get_verified_fix_example), which cover code-level WCAG work rather than regulatory timelines.

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 clear: this is the tool for regulatory deadline questions, and the enumerated entity types show exactly when it applies. However, it never states when *not* to use it (e.g., for general WCAG conformance questions use lookup_wcag_criterion), so the routing 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.