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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the pagination behavior ('one page of days at a time'), which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but says nothing about what happens for a week with no plan or how days are ordered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action, the scoping parameter and the paging model all appear before any trailing detail.

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 simple, fully-annotated, fully-described read tool this is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that with no output schema, the description doesn't say what a 'page of days' contains, which would help an agent interpret the result.

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 100%, so weekStart, limit and cursor are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates that weekStart is a Monday and hints at paging but adds no new syntax, formatting or edge-case meaning beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Read the dinner plan for the week'), scoping it to a week rather than a single day, which implicitly separates it from get_day and get_planned_dinner. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

'One page of days at a time' signals a paginated read and implies repeated calls with a cursor, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_day (single day) or get_planning_status. The agent must infer which read tool fits.

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