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

The annotation set already declares readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds 'Nothing is changed by this tool' and lists the data returned. This is consistent with the annotations and provides useful behavioral clarity, but it doesn't add deeper context such as auth or pagination.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then result scope, then when to use it, then a side-effect guarantee. No wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with full parameter schema, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger situations, returned fields, and non-mutating behavior. This is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 the description need not explain parameters; it doesn't add semantic detail beyond the schema. The phrase 'whole plan' echoes the collection parameter's schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Read what is already in the user's Daily Studio content plan' and enumerates returned fields, making the verb and resource specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_planned_scripts, though it contrasts with add/edit actions.

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 explicit usage triggers: 'Call this before adding to a plan so you do not repeat what is there, before editing so you hold real ids, and whenever the user asks what they have coming up.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative tools.

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