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

The description discloses the dynamic behavior of compressing items proportionally when the planning runway is shorter than 12 months, and explains that items come undated without wedding_date. This adds context beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details scheduling and filtering. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's behavior, scheduling logic, and filtering options. It does not describe the output format, but since it's a checklist, the item fields are implied. The complexity is moderateлекс and the description sufficiently prepares the agent.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for most parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for 'depth' (by giving item counts), explains how wedding_date and planning_started affect scheduling, and clarifies that ceremony gates legal items. This goes 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a wedding planning checklist with Hungarian legal steps, specifically Latido's checklist scheduled to a wedding date. It distinguishes it from sibling tools (search, vendors, budget) by explicitly stating its purpose: 'what should we be doing now' questions.

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?

It explicitly says to use for 'what should we be doing now' questions and explains the filtering by phase and depth. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the usage context is clear from the description and sibling distinction.

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