Compute a prescriptive period under the Civil Code

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool is deterministic, computes arithmetic over cited articles, may not reflect real-world interruption, and is not legal advice. This meaningfully adds behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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 three sentences with no wasted words, front-loads the core purpose, and packs the caveats and routing into the remaining sentences. 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?

For a tool with two parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, how to invoke it, what to verify, and what limitations apply. An agent can select and call it correctly without needing additional clarification.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters at 100%, but the description adds functional meaning: actionType selects the class of action yielding a codal period in years and the exact article, while causeOfActionDate is used to compute the deadline. This goes beyond mere schema labels and helps the agent understand how parameters drive the computation.

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 verb and resource: it computes a prescriptive period under Civil Code Arts. 1144-1149 (RA 386). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compute_deadline and compute_13th_month by naming the exact legal domain and the calculation approach.

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 explicitly tells the agent to pick a class of action, optionally provide a cause-of-action date, and explains what outputs follow. It also names get_provision and cite_validate as verification alternatives and warns that interruption under Art. 1155 can affect the result, giving a clear when-to-use and when-to-caveat context.

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