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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful transparency beyond the schema: 'Nothing is saved and no account is needed' and 'same planning engine as the Wedyesday website, so nothing here is invented.'

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose: the first sentence states what the tool produces, the second adds credibility, and the third handles the save/account boundary and next step. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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, but the description names the key output components: month-by-month checklist with real due dates, regional budget split, and comparison to typical local spend. Given the tool's 12-parameter complexity and conditional date fields, the output summary could be slightly richer, but it is sufficient for a read-only, fully schema-documented generation tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters, including conditionals like dateMode, season, and eventDate. The description reinforces the budget/region relationship but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Build a personalised wedding plan'—and immediately lists concrete deliverables: a month-by-month checklist, regional budget split, and comparison to typical local spend. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying that nothing is saved and that create_wedyesday_workspace_link is the follow-up tool.

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 clearly frames this tool as the generation step and explicitly names the sibling follow-up tool ('follow up with create_wedyesday_workspace_link when the couple wants to keep it'). However, it does not systematically state when to prefer this over other sibling tools such as get_wedding_cost_guide or list_wedding_markets.

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