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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' merely repeats that. It does add genuinely new behavioral context: saved drafts are not publication proof and linkage/calendar_sync must be verified, which warns the agent about data trustworthiness.

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 terse fragments with no wasted prose, and the resource is front-loaded. But it is telegraphic to the point of opacity — 'linkage' and 'calendar_sync' are undefined terms an agent cannot resolve — and 'Read-only' is redundant against the annotations.

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 output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, yet it only vaguely gestures at 'source drafts and current move states' without describing shape, ordering, or time range. The cryptic field names linkage and calendar_sync go unexplained, leaving the agent unsure how to read 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and additionalProperties is false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 fragment 'Growth content calendar, source drafts and current move states' names the resource and its contents, and the title supplies the verb 'View'. However, it never distinguishes this calendar from the many sibling read tools such as list_queue, list_outputs, list_feed, or get_move, so an agent cannot confidently tell which surface to open.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. 'Check linkage and calendar_sync' is an instruction about what to inspect after calling, not a condition for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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