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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is read-only and that wide ranges are capped, with a `range` materialisation indicator, but it does not cover permissions, pagination, or broader response 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and contains no filler sentences. It is dense and uses parenthetical clauses to pack in several concepts, which slightly reduces readability but remains efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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 only two required date parameters, 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the key returned data categories, read-only nature, cap behavior, and CRM-events alternative. It still omits exact response shape and pagination/auth details, but is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so from/to are already documented as ISO dates. The description still adds meaningful constraint context by warning that wide date ranges are capped, which affects how from/to should be chosen, even though `range` is a response-side concept rather than an input parameter.

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 specifies the resource and scope precisely: planner-layer calendar data, campaign and SDR sending windows per day/channel, with fields like paused flag and planned/sent today. It also explicitly distinguishes the CRM events sibling by naming crm_list_calendar_events, so an agent can tell what this tool returns versus the alternative.

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?

It gives clear routing context by stating that CRM events are served by crm_list_calendar_events, implicitly directing this tool to planner/sending-window data. It lacks fuller when-to-use wording or exclusions, but the alternative is named and the scope is clear.

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