Get CBPR+ cutover date

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns the specific date (2026-11-16), explains its enforcement significance, and notes that payments failing after that date are rejected. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and background context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), yet the description provides complete context: the date's format, its role in enforcement, differentiation from the readiness tool, and the rationale for its existence. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It appropriately focuses on the output and usage.

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 clearly states the verb (Return), resource (official CBPR+ / Nov 2026 cutover date), and output format (ISO 8601). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_cbpr_readiness by noting that this tool returns the date for quoting purposes, not for auditing.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to quote the enforcement date directly, without parsing a document.' and 'To actually audit a statement against the rules that take effect on that date, call check_cbpr_readiness instead.' This clearly tells when and when not to use the tool.

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