canvas_planner_notes

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 fully covered. The description adds the inclusive date-boundary behavior ("both days included"), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result ordering, volume, or how pagination behaves in practice.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical alias and format note are compact and load-bearing. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 four-parameter, paginated read tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum hint at what is returned (titles, due dates, courses) and that results are paged. It omits both, leaving the agent to infer return shape from the raw/page parameters.

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 all four parameters (raw, page, start_date, end_date) are already documented at the field level, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's only added semantic is confirming both endpoints are inclusive, which is marginal given the schema's "First day to include"/"Last day to include" wording.

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+resource ("Read your personal to-do notes (planner notes)") plus an optional scope, so the operation is immediately legible. It does not differentiate from adjacent siblings such as canvas_todo or canvas_planner, which an agent could plausibly confuse with planner notes.

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?

"optionally for a date range" implies the main usage pattern but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-alternatives guidance, and no mention of canvas_todo or canvas_planner_overrides. The agent must infer tool selection from the name alone.

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