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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is well covered. The description adds useful domain context by naming the planned outputs (courses, exam booking, tutor hours), but it does not disclose return format, permissions, or other behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide.

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 tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage condition following immediately. No extraneous text; each sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple read-only planning tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of what the tool computes and when to use it. However, it leaves the city and goal parameters unexplained, which is a meaningful gap given the 0% schema coverage on those inputs.

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 0% for three parameters. The description clarifies the date concept (arrival, inburgering or exam date), but it does not explain the city or goal parameters at all. With no schema descriptions, it only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific planning action: working backward from an arrival, inburgering or exam date to what to start when, including courses, exam booking and tutor hours. It clearly defines the resource and output focus. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from any of the similarly named sibling tools.

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 gives a clear use condition: 'Use it when someone has a fixed date.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternative sibling tools for cases where no fixed date exists.

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