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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes further by enumerating exactly what is computed and returned: batch sizes, per-inbox daily load against a 15-a-day pace, required inbox count at that pace, and an eight-week calendar. It also explicitly disclaims any side effects on inboxes or sequencers, which is the key behavioral risk an agent might assume for a 'plan' tool with write-adjacent siblings.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what it produces, followed immediately by the safety disclaimer. No filler, and the disclaimer is placed where an agent skimming will still see it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so concretely (batch sizes, load comparison, needed inbox count, eight-week calendar). Combined with the disclosed 15-a-day assumption and the no-side-effects disclaimer, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it explains the two-batch model these parameters feed and surfaces the built-in 15-a-day pace assumption used in the comparison output. The cadenceWeek enum values are only echoed from the schema, not elaborated.

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 and resource ('Suggests a two-batch inbox rotation schedule') and pins down the model: fleet split in half, one batch sending while the other rests, swaps at fixed intervals. This clearly separates it from sizing/planning siblings like plan_infrastructure or burned_inbox_guidance.

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 clear context for use (planning a rotation for a fleet given daily volume) and an explicit non-goal: 'it does not pause, resume or change any inbox or sequencer.' It stops short of naming an alternative sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully routed.

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