Today's plan

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about the 'for today' scope and the statuses returned, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as data freshness, fallback when no plan exists, or how the optional elderId affects the response.

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 two compact sentences that front-load the resource and its contents, then give an explicit invocation cue. There is no filler, no repetition of annotations, and no unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with a single fully documented optional parameter, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool provides and when to call it first, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and the elderId description ('Elder id. Omit for the household elder.') already provides the needed semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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 identifies the resource as 'the elder's medication schedule for today' and enumerates the included content: taken doses, next dose, missed dose, appointments, and check-in status. This is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like caregiver_summary or daily_checkin by name.

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 a direct usage directive: 'Call this first for any "what's my day" or "what do I take" question.' This clearly states when to use the tool, but it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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