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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds useful behavioral context about what is returned (milestones across eight phases, spanning eighteen months before through the day) and how the optional month limit filters results, but it does not describe the return format or pagination.

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 written sentences with zero waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by the optional filtering note; every phrase 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 read-only getter with one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations that carry the safety profile, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how filtering works. It could be improved by clarifying its relationship to the similar get_planning_timeline sibling.

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%, so the single parameter months_out is already documented in the schema. The description adds that it is optional and that it narrows the milestones shown, which is marginally useful but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 milestones) with scope detail (eight phases, eighteen months before through the day itself). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_planning_timeline, leaving ambiguity about which timeline tool to use.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are named. The description implies usage for destination wedding checklists, but given the sibling get_planning_timeline, the lack of routing guidance is a clear gap.

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