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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description does add one behavioral fact beyond the annotations – that member preferences are used only when the caller already holds member:read authorization – but says nothing about conflict resolution, how plans are returned, or limits.

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 short sentences with the date scope and authorization caveat front-loaded; there is no filler. The compactness is slightly under-informative rather than verbose, so it is efficient without being exemplary.

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 ten-parameter planning tool with 10% schema coverage and no output-schema shortcut (the output schema is present but the description still does not explain what a plan looks like), the description is too thin. It omits how conflicts are resolved, how dates interact with start/end, and how the networking and food queries are applied.

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 coverage is only 10%, leaving nine of ten parameters undocumented, and the description does not compensate: it never explains dates, start, end, goals, bufferMinutes, maxItemsPerDay, networkingLimit, or the two query fields. Only the member-preference note touches on behavior, not on any parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build conflict-aware day plans') with a date scope of November 2–6, 2026, which is clearer than the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling plan_day, which an agent would need in order to pick correctly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no when-not-to-use guidance. It never names plan_day or any other alternative, so the agent is left to infer whether this is a week-level wrapper around plan_day or a different tool entirely.

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