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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence repeats structured data. The description does add behavioral context beyond annotations: 'saved words are not publication proof' warns about interpretation of results, which is genuinely useful. It stops short of describing return format, pagination, or scope.

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?

At two terse sentences, it is compact and front-loaded. However, the compressed jargon ('source drafts, current move states and X production switch') reads as a list of terms without connective explanation, trading clarity for brevity.

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?

No output schema exists and the description does not explain what the calendar view contains, how artifacts are organized, or how 'move states' relate to siblings. The warning about publication proof is helpful but leaves major gaps for an agent trying to decide whether to rely on this tool's results.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter guidance is not required and the baseline is 4. The description correctly extends no parameter information, and the schema's additionalProperties:false matches the no-args contract.

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 names concrete artifacts (growth content calendar, source drafts, move states, X production switch) but the density of internal jargon makes the core purpose vague. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_move or get_output, but an agent unfamiliar with the domain cannot form a clear picture of what it returns.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_move, get_output, or get_activity. The phrase 'Check linkage and calendar_sync' hints at a use case but does not name competing tools or selection conditions.

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