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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: the plan does NOT auto-expire, re-asks return the same plan with LIVE item state, and it explains what 'done' means per item type ('tackle' vs 'check'). It also discloses the fallback synthesis bundle contents and the embedded _instruction directing a save_focus call — far beyond a name restatement.

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?

Purpose and session-opener guidance are front-loaded, and each sentence adds substance about lifecycle or fallback. It is dense and somewhat sprawling with nested parentheticals, which slightly hurts scannability, but there is little wasted content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns — and it does: the current plan with LIVE item states, or a synthesis bundle enumerating open findings, due interventions, outcomes summary, trends, and carried-forward items. Combined with the lifecycle and refresh semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 schema already documents top, _offset, and refresh. The description reinforces refresh with the 'plan my week' idiom and packetizes its effect, adding marginal meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 — returning the merchant's current weekly plan, framed as the committed 'what to work on now' list. It clearly differentiates itself from the write-side siblings (save_focus, update_focus_item) by describing both the read of the existing plan and the synthesis fallback. An agent can identify this as the read-oriented session opener without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly frames usage ('Use as a session opener') and gives the trigger for the alternative path ('refresh: true' / 'plan my week'). It implies when the fallback synthesis fires (no plan exists or refresh requested). No explicit when-not guidance, but the conditions are clear enough to route correctly.

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