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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered. The description adds only that results are sorted by months-out and span venue planning through day-of logistics, which describes content but no filtering, pagination, or edge-case 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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and scope with no filler. Every clause contributes: what is returned, how it's organized, and the range of content covered.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does explain the shape of the return (timeline bucketed by months, spanning venue planning to day-of). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented optional parameter, this is nearly complete, though the absence of any mention of defaults for months_out is a small 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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents months_out including its filtering purpose. The description's phrase 'organized by months before the wedding' loosely aligns with the parameter but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so 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 (Returns) and resource (destination wedding planning timeline), plus the organizing dimension (months before the wedding). It implicitly separates itself from get_day_of_timeline and get_wedding_checklist via the month-based framing, but never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: the month-based framing suggests this is for long-range planning rather than day-of logistics. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as get_day_of_timeline or get_wedding_checklist, which is a notable gap given the many sibling timeline tools.

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