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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the data is as-planned rather than live, and access is granted to every planner owner (an authorization note). It says nothing about freshness, caching, or failure modes when no plan exists.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the key distinction (as-planned vs live) is front-loaded in the first clause. Slightly terse to the point of under-specification rather than wordiness.

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?

With zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema that carries the return shape, the description only needs to establish what is being read and who can read it, which it does. The only shortfall is the unexplained meaning of 'capacity' when no planner is active.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The schema is trivially complete with additionalProperties false.

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 ('Read planner capacity') and explicitly contrasts it with 'live AMC eligibility', which separates it from the showtime/eligibility-oriented siblings. The residual gap is that 'capacity' is never defined in units or scope, so the agent knows the domain but not exactly what quantity it reads.

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 phrase 'not live AMC eligibility' implicitly tells the agent when to prefer this tool over eligibility lookups, and 'Available to every planner owner' signals a permission precondition. However, no sibling tool is named as the alternative and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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