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

Annotations already establish this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world computation, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape (the times plus a link to the plan on loafy.ai) and the underlying rule set (The Sourdough Framework), which no structured field provides since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the backward-planning method, then the return value. The first sentence is long but dense with genuine content rather than padding; nothing reads as filler.

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?

For a read-only planner with 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the process, the inputs' roles, and what comes back. It stops short of edge-case behavior (e.g. a ready_at in the past or the book's default assumptions when optional params are omitted), but that gap is minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the field descriptions: it frames ready_at as the anchor that everything is computed backwards from, and states that kitchen temperature drives how much starter is used. These causal relations are not spelled out in the schema itself.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Plan a sourdough bake') and pinpoints the exact computation: working backwards from oven-out time to feed, mix, shape, proof, preheat and bake. This is clearly distinct from siblings like calculate_bread_dough or log_bake, which handle ingredients or recording rather than scheduling.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition — the baker knows when the bread should come out of the oven and wants the full schedule. However, it names no alternative tool (e.g. calculate_bread_dough for ingredient amounts) and states no exclusions, so the agent must infer sibling routing.

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