calculate_rti_deadline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered structurally. The description adds the 'not legal advice' disclaimer and identifies that output is a standard envelope with a computed deadline date, but with an output schema present even that is partly redundant. Adds modest value beyond annotations.

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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded in two tight sentences, and the Args/Returns/Notes blocks are cleanly separated. The Args section duplicates schema content, which is mild waste, but overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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 spelled out; the description nonetheless flags the envelope and the legal disclaimer. For a three-parameter pure calculation tool, this covers what an agent needs, though it never states the underlying statutory durations or boundary conditions.

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 the schema already documents filed_date format and both booleans. The Args block in the description restates those same fields with no extra syntax, defaults, or edge-case semantics, so 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 (RTI response deadlines) and enumerates the three deadline regimes it handles (standard, life/liberty, APIO-routed). This clearly separates it from siblings like calculate_rti_fee, calculate_rti_penalty_estimate, and get_regulatory_deadlines.

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 second sentence gives an explicit usage context ('determining the due date for receiving a response to an RTI application'), which is enough to route the agent correctly. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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