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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description focuses on behavior that structured fields cannot convey: the actual planning cadence (roughly every third day) and the hard exclusion of Friday and Saturday. It does not explain what happens to already-planned leftover dinners when toggled off, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism and cadence, followed by the scope differentiator. No filler; the only slight weakness is that the final clause is a fragment whose value depends on the agent knowing the rule-based siblings exist.

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 one-parameter, idempotent household toggle with an annotated safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral facts (cadence, excluded days, household-vs-rule scope) an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the side effect on existing planned leftover meals is unaddressed.

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?

The single 'enabled' parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the meaning ('Whether Bryti plans leftover dinners') but adds no syntax or edge-case detail about the boolean beyond what the schema already says.

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 resource (leftover dinners) and the effect of the flag (plans them about every third day, never Friday/Saturday). The closing clause 'A household setting, not a rule' distinguishes it from the many upsert_*_rule siblings without naming one, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

'A household setting, not a rule' gives an implied when-to-use signal by contrasting with the rule-based siblings in the tool list. However, it never names an alternative tool or says explicitly when to prefer a frequency/on-day rule over this toggle, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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