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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuine constraints on top: recurrence is either everyDays OR weekdays, and at most one of endsOn/endsAfter. It does not disclose duplicate-handling, permission requirements, or what happens to an existing schedule, so it stops short of full behavioral coverage.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the two constraint rules. Every sentence carries routing or constraint information; there is 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?

For an 11-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope selection, recurrence mode, and termination conditions, which is the bulk of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around defaults resolution and behavior on conflicting existing schedules, though the schema covers defaults.

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 every parameter, including the everyDays/weekdays and endsOn/endsAfter exclusivity rules. The description largely restates those same constraints rather than adding new semantics, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a recurring care schedule'), enumerates the schedule types (water/fertilize/custom), and names the three scoping targets (plant, bed, whole garden). An agent can distinguish this from delete_schedule and the planting-management siblings without opening 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use when the user wants a repeating watering/feeding reminder'), which is the key routing signal versus one-off logging tools. It does not, however, name the sibling to use for the inverse operation (delete_schedule) or state what happens if a schedule already exists.

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