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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false and notably idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotation set: it does not say what happens if a date already has an outcome (overwrite vs. duplicate/error — the non-idempotent hint makes this question important), nor what side effects recording has on planning.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with an enumerated outcome list and no filler. It earns its length, though it spends its words restating the status enum rather than covering anything the schema doesn't.

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 four-parameter, fully documented mutation with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. The missing piece an agent actually needs is the write semantics for an already-recorded date, given idempotentHint=false — neither annotations nor description resolve whether this creates a duplicate or replaces the prior outcome.

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 every parameter including the required date/status pair and the conditional reason enum is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's restatement of the four statuses in plain language ('made with changes' for CookedWithChanges) is a mild usability aid but adds no semantics for notes or the reason constraint.

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 ('Record how a planned dinner went') and paraphrases the four status outcomes, so the tool's job is immediately clear. It stops short of distinguishing itself from adjacent siblings such as mark_eating_out or replace_dinner, even though its 'eaten elsewhere' outcome plausibly overlaps with mark_eating_out.

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 says what to record but never when: nothing about whether this is done after the dinner date has passed, whether it should be called once per date, or how it relates to mark_eating_out, get_planned_dinner, or replan_open_days. With 50+ siblings and plausible overlap, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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