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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the operation is read-only ('Read'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or potential errors, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and the usage hint is woven in without redundancy.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description provides sufficient context for when to use it, but lacks details about the output shape or any edge-case behavior. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete about what the agent will get back.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'oldest' and 'newest' parameters, only mentioning a 'date window.' The agent must infer that these parameters define the window boundaries, but the description adds no explicit semantic detail beyond the schema's format patterns.

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 reads planned events from the Intervals calendar within a date window. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create or delete plan events.

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 provides an explicit usage context: 'Use this before rewriting or replacing an existing STAS plan.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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