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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely valuable context: it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) and 'opens nothing by itself.' This resolves the apparent tension between the 'add' name and the read-only annotation, telling the agent exactly what to expect.

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 purpose and workflow are front-loaded, but the trailing sentence listing Calendar, Check-Ins, Giving, Groups, People and Services plus the MCP date is verbose background that mostly doesn't help the agent call the tool. It's efficient in the first two clauses but padded afterward.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the call returns (instructions) and what to do next (browser tools). Only minor gaps remain around how the returned steps are formatted.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema needs no elaboration and the description doesn't over-promise any inputs, keeping behavior consistent with the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a profile note in the user's own Planning Center account') and clarifies that it actually returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. The distinction from the cotlet_browser_* tools that do the actual work is made explicit, so an agent can place it in the workflow.

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 a useful workflow hint ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools') and explains why the API/MCP alternatives aren't used (MCP is mostly read-only). However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or how it compares to the other planning_center_* siblings, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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