calculate_limitation_deadline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful caveat ("Not legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate") and mentions the return envelope, but gives no detail on jurisdiction assumptions, validation failures, or error behavior for an out-of-range date.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first line, then cleanly sectioned into Use/Args/Returns/Notes. The Returns line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but overall there is little waste.

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 two-parameter deterministic calculator with an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, inputs, and a legal caveat. Nothing essential is missing, though it could note jurisdiction or date-range constraints.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description's Args block largely restates them (including the YYYY-MM-DD format already in the schema). No additional meaning is added, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (calculate) and resource (deadline under the Limitation Act), then narrows scope to the last date for filing a suit, appeal, or application. This clearly separates it from nearby deadline siblings like calculate_rti_deadline and get_regulatory_deadlines, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Use when computing the last date to file a suit, appeal, or application based on cause of action" gives a clear triggering context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the sibling tools an agent should prefer for other deadline types.

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