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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the output is a draft built from standard planning offsets, not confirmed vendor/venue/sunset schedules, which tells the agent how much to trust the result. It doesn't describe return format, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is solid.

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: the first states what it builds, the second states the key limitation. Zero filler and the purpose is front-loaded before the caveat.

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, no-output-schema generation tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers what an agent needs: what it produces and the caveat that timings are generic offsets rather than confirmed. Only the shape of the returned schedule is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 100% and each of the three parameters is fully documented in the schema, including alternate time formats. The description only restates the parameter names at a high level, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 — builds a draft wedding-day schedule — and names the three inputs it keys on. It implicitly contrasts with the long-horizon get_planning_timeline sibling but never says so explicitly.

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 implies the use case (day-of schedule rather than long-term plan) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_planning_timeline or get_wedding_checklist. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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