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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that the change is narrowly scoped to a single occurrence and leaves the remaining schedule intact — a useful blast-radius statement. It does not address reversibility or how to undo the skip, so it falls short of a 5.

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, front-loaded sentences that deliver purpose, use case, and alternative before the Args block. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a single-param mutation tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies purpose, scope, and routing to the alternative — everything an agent needs to select and invoke it 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 0%, so the description must carry the param meaning; it does explain reminder_id as 'Reminder whose next call should be skipped,' which is meaningfully more than the bare property name. It does not specify the expected ID format, so it is not fully compensating.

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 (skip) and resource (the next scheduled call) with an explicit scope qualifier: 'only the next scheduled call, leaving the rest of the schedule untouched.' This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling set_skip_dates.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('not tomorrow, but keep it going after that') and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('To skip particular calendar dates instead, use set_skip_dates'). Nothing is left to inference.

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