calculate_response_deadline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the legal basis (CFR sections), the output structure (deadline, 6-month max, extension table), and the calculation logic, but does not explicitly state the tool has no side effects or is a pure calculation.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct role: purpose, legal basis, output, and usage. No redundancy or filler, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 neither annotations nor output schema, the description covers inputs, legal basis, output, and usage. The gap around advisory_action handling and date format prevents a perfect score, but it is largely 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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by linking action_type to shortened periods ('2 for restriction requirements'), entity_status to fees, and the mailing date as the starting point. It does not specify the date format or the advisory_action period, which keeps it from 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Compute' with clear resources ('response deadline' and 'cost'), and references CFR sections. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'calculate_filing_fees' by focusing on deadlines and extensions.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when an inventor receives an Office Action or is deciding whether to buy an extension,' giving clear context. However, it does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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