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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing exactly what the result aggregates: tasks, plans, Google/calendar events, and an overdue summary.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the trigger phrase. Minor redundancy exists in repeating 'tomorrow's' across several list items, but it remains readable and efficient overall.

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?

The description covers the trigger, scope, and content of the response, and an output schema is present to detail the return structure. With a complete input schema and read-only annotations, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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 both parameters (timezone and householdId) are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 resource (tomorrow's schedule) and the user intents that should trigger it: agenda, tasks, plans, and preparation. The clear temporal scope ('tomorrow's') distinguishes it from sibling tools like familia_get_today_schedule and familia_get_day_overview without needing to name them.

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?

The description gives an explicit trigger condition: use when the user asks about tomorrow's agenda, tasks, plans, or preparation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the 'when to use' guidance is clear and actionable.

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