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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the output scope ('Includes tasks, plans, Google/calendar events, and an overdue summary') but no additional behavioral traits like timezone handling or household aggregation behavior.

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 compact sentences: the first is an actionable trigger, the second is the output scope. There is no fluff, no repetition of schema content, and important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, fully documented optional parameters, and existence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool. The only notable omission is explicit routing to sibling schedule tools for non-today queries.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema: timezone has an IANA example and default, and householdId explains its optionality and omission behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 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 clearly identifies the resource ('today's agenda, today's tasks') and provides concrete user phrasings. It states the content scope (tasks, plans, Google/calendar events, overdue summary), but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like familia_get_tomorrow_schedule.

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?

'Use this when the user asks about today's agenda...' gives explicit when-to-use conditions with natural language examples. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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