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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only operation (readOnlyHint=false) but do not convey specifics. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it creates a hosted resource, returns a private URL and admin token, and clarifies the cost (free) and included revisions (2 AI revisions). This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps set expectations.

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 consists of three short, information-dense sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second explains key output artifacts, and the third covers cost and included revisions. There is no redundant or filler content, and the structure is logical and easy to scan.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential context: prerequisite (validated spec), outputs (URL and token), and a notable business rule (free with 2 AI revisions). It does not explain the concept of a 'Consistency Calendar', but given sibling tools like get_template_guide, this may be understood from context. The output schema handles detailed return structure, so the description is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter ('spec' is described as 'A SprintSpec v1 that passed validate_spec'). The description merely echoes 'validated SprintSpec' without adding new details about the parameter's structure, requirements, or examples. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description adds no further parameter meaning.

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 the tool's function: 'Create a hosted Consistency Calendar from a validated SprintSpec'. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like create_share_link and revise_calendar, and also mentions the key outputs (URL and admin token), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies when to use the tool by specifying it requires 'a validated SprintSpec', suggesting prior use of validate_spec. It also mentions 'admin token for later revisions', which hints at a workflow involving revise_calendar. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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