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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the authentication requirement ('signed-in account') and an ownership/authorization boundary ('weddings the account can manage'), though it says nothing about empty-state or error behavior when no wedding is selected.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most important information (what is returned) is front-loaded ahead of the access constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and covers authorization, and rich annotations cover the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

With one optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains wedding_id and its conditional requirement. The phrase 'selected wedding' in the description implies a selection concept but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully-documented parameters.

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 (Returns) and resource (the signed-in account's wedding details) and enumerates the returned fields (partner names, date, location, venue), which helps separate it from update_my_wedding. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from nearest siblings like get_my_wedding_stats or get_venue_details, whose scope overlaps with 'location and venue'.

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 access constraint ('limited to weddings the account can manage') implies this is the authenticated account's own wedding, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor any mention of when to prefer get_my_wedding_stats, get_venue_details, or update_my_wedding instead. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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