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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful content context (that the result bundles both programme items and the day's contact list) but says nothing about ordering semantics, volume, or how the two sections are returned.

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 sentence that front-loads what the tool returns and then details the fields, with no filler. It is long-ish and reads as a list, but every clause maps to actual returned data.

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?

With no output schema available, the description must carry the return contract, and it does so well by naming the item fields (time, duration, place, responsible party, vendor, visibility) plus the contact list. Only the response shape — how items and contacts are grouped or ordered — remains unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to explain; the baseline for an empty parameter set applies. The description correctly signals that the call is unscoped — it always returns the whole day.

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?

Names the resource concretely ('run of show for the wedding day', with the Dutch term 'draaiboek') and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling reads like list-moments or get-wedding-overview. It is a content description rather than a verb phrase, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 only implied: the agent is expected to infer that this is the single call to fetch the day's schedule, in contrast to the add-/update-/delete-schedule-item siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of the mutating alternatives.

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