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

Without annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that running the plan consumes the shared AI-generation allowance, a relevant operational side effect. It does not describe return values, whether published posts are created, or whether the operation is repeatable, but the quota note provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 terse sentences with no filler; the first states the action and the second adds the key cost implication. It is appropriately front-loaded and minimal for a zero-parameter tool.

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 no-argument action the description is mostly sufficient, and the AI-generation allowance warning is a key operational fact. However, it omits the relationship between the generated planned posts and the approval/scheduling flow visible in sibling tools, so an agent gets only a partial picture.

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 input schema is empty and there are no required parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already shows. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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 uses an explicit imperative, 'Run Plan My Week,' and names the resource being acted on, making the tool's action clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling planning tools such as get_current_plan or schedule_post, so it falls 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?

No guidance is given about when to invoke plan_week versus approve_plan_item, get_current_plan, schedule_post, or publish_now. The allowance sentence is a cost caveat, not a routing rule, and there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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