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

Annotations already declare readOnly/no-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: cost ($0.05), API-key requirement, the 92-day cap, redaction parity with get_events, and the food-mirror dedup rule ('listed once, under food'). It stops short of describing pagination or record-volume limits.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then layers scope, dedup, redaction, and pricing. Dense with parentheticals but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 annotations covering safety, a fully covered schema, and an output schema for return values, the description supplies the remaining operational context an agent needs: range limit, timezone scope, dedup behavior, redaction, auth, and cost. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 from/to/date/at/timezone, including the 'alias' and timezone-precedence notes. The description adds the 92-day range cap and default-today behavior, which is useful but modest beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('one read') and enumerates the exact resources aggregated: calendar events, Moments, and Food Diary entries over a civil date range. The aggregation framing distinguishes it from the single-source siblings (get_events, get_moments, get_food_log) without needing to open any schema.

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 context is implied ('the user's days in one read', default today, max 92 days) but there is no explicit when-to-use versus the individual getters it aggregates. It references get_events only for redaction semantics, not as an alternative to choose between, so routing guidance is left largely to inference.

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