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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying it operates on the 'signed-in couple's' wedding, requires a connected Wedyesday account, and produces an aggregated overview including countdown, checklist progress, budget position, and next due item.

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 concise: two sentences front-loaded with the core purpose and content. It packs useful details (what data is returned, a direct link, the 'start here' directive, the account requirement) with no filler or repetition of the name.

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 a read-only dashboard tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a thorough output expectations, including date, countdown, progress, budget, and next due item. It states the auth prerequisite and links to related dashboard content, giving enough context to confidently invoke the 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 description itself does not explain the weddingId parameter, but the schema already fully documents it: 'Only needed when the account has more than one wedding.' With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate the description doesn't need to repeat the schema but also adds little semantic value beyond it.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get an overview') with a clearly defined resource: the signed-in couple's Wedyesday wedding dashboard. It enumerates the contents (date, countdown, checklist progress, budget position, due next, dashboard link) and explicitly points to itself as the starting point for 'my wedding' questions, distinguishing it from more focused sibling tools like get_my_wedding_budget or get_my_guest_list.

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?

The description provides clear contextual guidance: 'Start here for any question about my wedding' signals when this tool is the appropriate entry point. It also states the prerequisite of a connected Wedyesday account, which is an essential usage condition. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, though sibling names imply the distinction.

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