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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one important consequential trait: planned posts consume the shared AI-generation allowance. However, it does not state whether running the tool mutates existing plans, creates drafts for approval, or produces a visible result.

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, with the command front-loaded and the key consequence second. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 an action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not say what happens after invocation beyond consuming allowance. An agent can call it with zero parameters, but it cannot tell whether a plan is generated for approval, whether schedules are changed, or what state results. The description is too thin for a side-effecting workflow operation.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema already documents this with an empty properties object. No parameter-level documentation is needed, so the rubric baseline of 4 applies.

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 action ('Run Plan My Week') and a concrete consequence ('planned post'), making it clear this is a batch planning operation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like schedule_post or get_current_plan, so some differentiation must be inferred from naming and context.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The sibling list implies a planning workflow, but the description does not direct an agent to choose this over schedule_post or approve_plan_item. It relies entirely on the tool name.

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