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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations do not carry: plans are conflict-aware, the horizon is locked to Nov 2–6, 2026, and member preferences are only consulted under a specific member:read authorization state. It omits any note about how a failed or partial plan is reported, but that is partly covered by the output schema.

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 zero filler; the core capability and the date horizon are front-loaded, and the authorization caveat is appropriately placed second. It is efficiently sized, though arguably too terse for a 10-parameter tool.

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?

The existence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but for a complex 10-parameter, zero-required-optional-args tool the description leaves critical gaps: no guidance on which parameters matter, no interaction with plan_day or the search_* tools, and no indication of what happens when authorization is absent. It is not yet sufficient for an agent to call this tool confidently.

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 only 10% across 10 parameters, so the description carries a heavy compensation burden it does not meet. The date range contextualizes the dates/start/end parameters at a high level, but query, goals, foodQuery, networkingQuery, networkingLimit, bufferMinutes, and maxItemsPerDay are left entirely undocumented, with no hint of how they interact or which are needed for a useful plan.

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 gives a specific verb ('Build') and a scoped resource ('conflict-aware day plans across November 2–6, 2026'), so an agent immediately knows this produces a multi-day plan. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling plan_day, leaving the agent to infer the week-vs-day distinction from the hardcoded date range.

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 only conditional guidance is a permission rule ('Uses member preferences only when the caller already supplied member:read authorization'), which is a prerequisite rather than a when/when-not rule. Nothing tells the agent when to choose this over plan_day or the search_* siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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