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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the aggregated sources, the chronological ordering, and that each item carries the user's answer plus whether a response is still needed. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what happens when the window is empty. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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?

The key information – what it lists and in what order – is front-loaded, but the body is one long run-on sentence with a sprawling colon list of sources and an ambiguous trailing phrase ('Each with their answer and whether it needs one'). It is dense rather than wasteful, yet a tighter structure would scan better.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers inclusion criteria, ordering, per-item answer state and exclusions. Missing pieces are minor: the look-ahead window is left entirely to the schema and no result-size expectations are set.

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 100%, so the single `days` parameter (1–30, default 14) is fully documented in the schema. The description never mentions the look-ahead window, and 'i veckan' arguably suggests a week while the default is 14 days. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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-plus-resource: everything coming up, in time order, aggregated across plans, RSVP'd/hosted events, club sessions, household calendar, places' dates and personal items. It also carves out scope with 'Not what comes from their notes or school.' It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. `events` or `waiting_for_me`) to contrast against, so differentiation is only partial.

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 opening 'Vad händer i veckan?' and 'everything coming up' implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-not or alternative routing, even though several siblings (`events`, `waiting_for_me`, `read_plan`) plausibly overlap. The only exclusion given concerns data sources, not tool choice.

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