objection_deadline

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond them – that the result includes 'step-by-step reasoning' – but says nothing about the 4-day postal delivery rule, the effect of a missing/incorrect legal remedy instruction, or how holidays are handled, all of which drive the computation.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core deliverable is front-loaded ahead of the legal citations and the reasoning note. Nothing needs to be trimmed, though it is doing less work than its length allows.

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 annotations cover the read-only safety profile. For a legally nuanced deadline calculator with five parameters, however, the description omits the caveats (delivery rule, faulty legal remedy instruction) that make its answers trustworthy.

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 60%, so the schema documents most fields already (state, received_on, letter_date). The description contributes the legal framing of the deadline but no parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific deliverable ('Last day to file a Widerspruch against a Bescheid') plus the governing provisions (§ 84 SGG, § 37 SGB X), so the agent knows exactly what is being computed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling calculate_deadline, which superficially sounds like the same job.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing away from the overlapping sibling calculate_deadline. Only the implied context (user has received a Bescheid and wants the objection deadline) tells the agent when to reach for this tool.

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