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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive, and the description still adds real behavioral context: the calculation itself (estimate minus tracked time), how capacity is reduced by holidays and personal time off with the capacityMinutes/offMinutes fields, the 80% 'near' threshold, the separate overdue/later/undated buckets, and visibility scoping to owned projects plus the user. The note that names and task titles are user-typed text is a useful provenance flag.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core computation before layering on capacity math, status thresholds, scoping and the Pro caveat. Every clause carries information, though the middle section reads as a run-on and could be split for 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does: per-person rows, per-week entries exposing capacityMinutes and offMinutes, a status value from empty/ok/near/over, and separate lists for overdue, later and undated work. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description reinforces the semantics: 'for each person' clarifies that personId narrows an otherwise all-people result set, and 'the tasks behind each week's number' gives includeTasks a concrete meaning beyond 'Add the tasks'. No syntax or format detail is added, so it stays short of a 5.

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 computed resource with its exact scope: per-person, time-left-on-open-tasks bucketed into the week of each due date for the next six weeks, measured against weekly capacity. That forward-looking six-week capacity model is distinct enough from other reporting tools (time report, utilization) that an agent can tell what it will get without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is implied by the opening phrase 'Plans the team's work' and constrained by 'A Pro feature', but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many report siblings (get_utilization_report, get_assignments_report, get_week_timesheet). The agent must infer selection from the scope description alone.

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