compute_deadline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that weekend and statutory holiday shifting is applied across all 16 states, which is real behavioral context beyond a bare 'calculate' claim, but it says nothing about day-counting conventions, how the state parameter affects the result, or whether the calculation is deterministic/read-only.

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?

A single dense sentence with the legal basis and operational scope front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (legal sections, holiday shifting, state coverage) 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the legal framework and shifting behavior well. However, with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter schema descriptions, it leaves the input contract under-specified for a tool whose correctness hinges on units and state codes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters, and it largely does not. It hints at the state parameter ('all 16 German states') but never explains state codes, the dauer_einheit unit values (default 'wochen'), or the expected format of ereignis_datum, leaving critical inputs like duration unit unclarified.

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), resource (German procedural deadlines), legal basis (§§ 187-193 BGB and ZPO), and scope (weekend/statutory holiday shifting, all 16 states). This is far more specific than the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to route against.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The agent can infer this is for deadline computation, but nothing states the conditions that select this tool over, say, get_norm or prepare_pleading_dossier.

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