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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the default window and that results are windowed ('planned_after_window says what even that hides'), signaling possible truncation. It does not cover ordering, volume, or what an empty result means.

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?

Compact and mostly front-loaded, but the phrasing is oblique in places ('planned_after_window says what even that hides') and references result field names the agent has not seen. Four sentences carry some redundancy in re-explaining the default window.

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 usefully sketches the return structure (a by-day plan plus an awaiting_outcome list) and the truncation signal, which is what an agent most needs for this read-only query. Missing only detail on ordering and how the follow-up settling flow completes.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents from/to defaults and formats, status enum, and account_id. The description's mention of the default window largely restates the schema, adding no new constraint or interpretation, so the baseline 3 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?

Describes the resource clearly: upcoming events by day plus planned events that passed with no outcome recorded. It distinguishes itself from the two sibling tools it hands off to (crm_attend_event, crm_update_event) and reveals the shape of the result. The framing 'What is coming, by day' is a bit literary rather than a crisp verb+resource, but an agent can still tell 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?

Gives explicit read-order guidance ('awaiting_outcome is the list to read first'), a follow-up behavior ('Ask what came of it'), and names the two siblings that resolve the item. It stops short of contrasting with overlapping siblings such as crm_today, and states no when-not-to-use case.

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