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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the output reveals whether a logged run fulfilled a plan and whether 'ourpr.create' wrote it, and it warns about collision checking before planning.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core purpose and output contents, the second gives the critical usage instruction. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 a rich output schema, full parameter documentation, and strong annotations, the description covers the remaining essential context: what the response contains and why the agent should call it before planning. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and both start_date and end_date already explain format and default behavior. The tool description does not need to repeat parameter details; it adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a precise resource ('the runner's planned runs') bounded by a date window, and enumerates the returned fields (day, name, miles, time, tag, note, fulfillment status, source). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ourpr_list_runs, which covers logged runs.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to read this tool before ourpr_plan_week to avoid placing a new plan on a day that already has one. That is concrete, actionable guidance tied to a real pre-condition, going beyond general context.

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