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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety semantics are covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the policy governs queued Slack post behavior and what fallback applies when no effective revision exists, which meaningfully informs downstream scheduling decisions.

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, front-loaded with the resource list and followed by the operational consequence. No wasted words, though the second sentence is slightly dense and could be split for easier scanning.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is read and one important side effect (Slack scheduling fallback). It falls short by omitting the meaning of the company parameter and giving no hint of the returned structure (hours format, holiday list shape, revision object), which the agent must infer.

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 single required parameter 'company' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no indication that it identifies the company whose policy is read, nor format expectations. With one undocumented parameter at 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb (read) and a precise resource set: business hours, holidays, response commitments and scheduled policy revisions. This clearly separates it from summer_support_policy_update, though the description never explicitly names that sibling or states the read-only counterpart relationship.

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 second sentence provides meaningful context — these hours govern queued Summer Slack posts and Slack defaults to Mon–Fri 9am–5pm PT without a revision — which implies when an agent should consult this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the update sibling.

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