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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the trailing 'Read-only' is mild repetition. The description earns credit elsewhere: it discloses provenance metadata per entry ('who said each (fuente) and whether they confirmed it') and a concrete horizon limit ('the next 14 days spelled out'), which tells the agent how far the data reaches and how trustworthy each item is.

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 plus a short tag, front-loaded with the resource and its contents before the usage instruction. The clause 'the one Morris keeps in WhatsApp and the app' adds source context but is the most expendable phrase; otherwise there is little waste.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description carries its share by describing what comes back (event types, attribution, confirmation state, 14-day horizon). Complete enough to call correctly, though it leaves the boundary against get_tournament_calendar unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics for the description to supplement. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and nothing here misleads about inputs.

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 ('Read the player's golf calendar') and enumerates exactly what it contains – rounds and tee times, training days, routines, tournaments, lessons – plus the 14-day forward window. That is far more specific than a tautology. The one gap is that it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_tournament_calendar, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 an explicit trigger ('use it when they ask what they have on') and a sequencing rule ('before change_calendar'), which is genuinely useful for an agent planning a mutation. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it, e.g. versus get_tournament_calendar or list_reminders, so it does not reach the top band.

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