Propose a schedule

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint), but the description adds genuine context beyond them: it writes nothing, and the response carries a plan_id, per-block explanations, and a workload verdict. It does not cover rate limits or the staleness/freshness of the plan, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then the payload contract, then the approval workflow. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the plan, plan_id, explanations, and workload verdict. Combined with the annotation safety profile and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it and hand off to apply_schedule.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (days, only, exclude, accounts, timezone, start_date) are already documented, including defaults and formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource chain (read calendars, find commitments, compute a balanced schedule) and explicitly frames itself as the non-writing planner, which separates it from apply_schedule in the same workflow.

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 gives explicit routing: this tool computes the plan, then 'show the plan to the user and get explicit approval before calling apply_schedule.' That names the alternative and the condition that gates it, so no inference is needed.

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