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. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is 'deterministic', 'conflict-aware', and 'Never invents travel time'—a specific anti-hallucination guarantee. It stops short of covering auth, rate limits, or fallback behavior.

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 packed sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral guarantee follows immediately without redundancy.

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?

Despite an output schema that removes the need to describe return values, the description is incomplete for a tool with 10 parameters and low schema coverage. It omits parameter semantics and usage guidelines, leaving the agent under-informed about how to invoke the tool correctly in context.

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 must compensate but largely does not. It never explains start, end, goals, maxItems, bufferMinutes, networkingLimit, or the other parameters; 'meal/networking/company options' only loosely hints at some query domains without defining semantics.

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 ('deterministic conflict-aware Houston-local schedule'), and clarifies data sources ('current guide events and official sessions, plus meal/networking/company options'). It distinguishes the tool by scope ('day' via title/name) from the sibling plan_conference_week, but does not explicitly name or contrast with that alternative.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any prerequisites or alternatives. It describes what the output contains but does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice versus plan_conference_week or search_* siblings.

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