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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description earns its keep by disclosing exactly what is destroyed: 'Planned dinners on unlocked days in the span are taken off the plan.' The 'unlocked days' qualifier is meaningful behavioral detail (implying locked dinners survive, tying to set_dinner_lock). It stops short of saying whether the removal is reversible or how to restore planned dinners, which would complete the destructive profile.

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, no filler. The core action comes first, followed by the side effect, so the agent sees the destructive consequence immediately.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a fully documented three-parameter schema and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what it marks, the span, and what it removes. The main omissions are undo/recovery guidance and explicit sibling routing, which keep it out of the top band.

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 date, endDate, and notes are already fully documented with ISO format and the 'omit for a single day' rule. The description only echoes the date-to-endDate span, adding no semantics beyond what the schema already provides; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark the household away from home') with the date span scope, and the parenthetical examples ('a trip, the cabin') make the concept concrete. The word 'household' implicitly contrasts with the sibling mark_member_absent, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Usage is implied through the examples of when this applies (a trip, the cabin), which is enough to recognize the scenario. However, it never states when NOT to use it — e.g. that a single person being gone should use mark_member_absent, or that a single missed dinner might be mark_eating_out — leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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