List plan blocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about the scope (personal day-planner, date filter, status field) that is not present in annotations, though it does not elaborate on 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 sentences, each purposeful: the first states what it does and the second provides differentiation from a sibling. No wasted words, and the core information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its scope, and its relationship to a similar tool. An agent can confidently select and invoke it without additional context.

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% because local_date has a clear description. The tool description repeats 'given local date' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool lists the user's personal day-planner blocks for a given local date, including their done/not-done status. It explicitly distinguishes this from list_daily_tasks, which lists board tasks, so there is no ambiguity about what resource is being accessed.

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 description explicitly names an alternative tool (list_daily_tasks) and clarifies when to use this tool instead: for the user's private schedule, not board tasks. This gives the agent clear context for tool selection and excludes a likely confusable use case.

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