grace_period

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose a key behavioral limit — output is citations only and does not evaluate whether a disclosure falls within the period — but says nothing about what happens with an unrecognized office, error behavior, or the shape/coverage of the returned law.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately after. No filler, though the opening clause 'What the cited law of an office says' is slightly indirect compared to a direct verb-led phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the citation-only limitation covers the main misuse risk. What is missing is the semantics of the sole required input, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call the tool successfully.

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% for the single required 'office' parameter, and the description only refers to it obliquely as 'an office'. It never states the expected identifier form (e.g., office code, name, or jurisdiction) or which offices are valid, so the only parameter remains underspecified in both schema and prose.

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 names a specific resource (the grace period disclosures before filing as stated by the cited law of a given office) and scopes it as a citation lookup. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic search tools, though it never names a sibling such as search_disclosures or rules_index as the alternative.

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?

There is an implicit when-not-to-use in 'Citations only: it does not say whether any disclosure falls inside the period', which tells the agent not to rely on it for applicability determinations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over sibling rule tools, no prerequisites, and no statement about the required 'office' value.

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