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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations: the plan is conflict-aware, it adds public contacts, and the results are only networking suggestions, never interview appointments. This prevents an agent from treating the output as confirmed scheduling.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the critical limitation about interview appointments is stated separately and succinctly.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the main behavior, constraints, and an important limitation. The main gap is that the optional start/end parameters are not explained, but the overall functional intent is complete enough for an agent to proceed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the jobIds parameter ('up to six current job IDs') but gives no semantic meaning for date, start, or end, leaving half of the parameters effectively undocumented.

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 verb ('Build') and resource ('conflict-aware AfroTech day around up to six current job IDs'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic planners like plan_day or plan_conference_week. The scope and constraints are immediately understandable to an agent.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent wants a day planned around target job IDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops just short of the strongest possible guidance.

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