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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral details about what data is returned (interviews with attendees, links, actions). It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences plus an example, front-loading key information without any wasted words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's use and behavior.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description lists the components of the return (time, attendees, links, actions). Combined with the read-only annotation and clear distinction from get_due, the description is fairly complete for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear enum description for range. The description provides an example call but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries the parameter semantics well.

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 clearly states it returns scheduled interviews with time, attendees, meeting links, and actions falling due for a specified range. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_due, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool: when users ask about plans, day/week overview, or before proposing a time. It also contrasts with get_due, noting that get_due only knows action deadlines, providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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