milestone_adherence

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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so unusually well: it explains the deliberately asymmetric grading, that 'missed'/'met_late' require human verification of a cited FCC document, that 'verification_required' asserts nothing and must not be reported as a miss, and that 'uncorroborated' means the arithmetic is silent rather than disagreeing.

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 purpose is front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries semantic weight about grading rules. It is a single dense paragraph, though, with interpretive caveats compressed together rather than structured, which slightly impedes scanning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it does: it defines the grade vocabulary, verification_status values, and that computed_grade always carries raw arithmetic even when classification withholds a grade. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret results correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that summary aggregates include withheld_adverse and uncorroborated_favourable, and notes that 'missed_unverified' was replaced by 'verification_required'. It still largely restates the filter parameters, keeping it short of a 5.

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 resource and regulatory basis: 'FCC deployment milestone adherence (47 CFR 25.164) — which authorized satellite systems met their deployment milestones.' No sibling tool overlaps this domain (they are search_* and get_* entity/filing tools), so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 is implied rather than framed: 'Filter by call_sign, classification, is_ngso; set summary=true for aggregate counts' tells how to parameterize but never states when this tool is the right choice versus an alternative, nor any exclusions. There is no sibling to name here, so the omission is less costly, but explicit context is absent.

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