calculate_deadline

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds the crucial non-obvious behavior that the computed end date rolls off weekends and public holidays. That shifting rule is the single most important thing an agent must know and is not derivable from the schema or annotations. It does not say whether results are recomputed against the caller's state by default or how the holiday calendar is sourced.

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 that front-loads the operation and legal basis, then closes with a concrete example; nothing is padded. The statutory citations add precision rather than noise, though the sentence is doing a lot of work at once.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the two things it uniquely must: the legal basis for the calculation and the weekend/holiday rolling rule. For a small utility calculator this is sufficient to invoke it correctly.

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 only 40% (days and weeks carry no descriptions), so the description must do more work. The example maps '2-week deadline' onto the weeks parameter, which is genuinely useful, but days and months are never explained and it is unclear whether the three unit parameters are additive or mutually exclusive. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves it open.

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+resource ('period calculation' of deadlines) and grounds it in the governing statutes (§ 26 SGB X / § 64 SGG), which tells the agent this is the statute-based calculator rather than a domain-specific one. It signals 'Generic' in contrast to siblings like objection_deadline and registration_deadlines, but never names those alternatives, so the differentiation stays implicit.

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 example ('a 2-week deadline in a letter from the agency') gives a concrete situation in which to reach for this tool, and 'Generic' hints it is the fallback when no specialised deadline tool fits. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the required start date, and no routing to objection_deadline/registration_deadlines for their specific cases.

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