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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only.' adds nothing, but the description contributes real behavioral context: load is computed as a percentage of personal calendar times max units, and over-allocations are always evaluated per day even when granularity is week or month. It also sets the expectation that the scheduler will not automatically level resources, which prevents an agent from misreading the report as an auto-fix.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences: what the report contains, then how to act on it. Nothing is buried, though the trailing 'Read-only.' is redundant with the annotations and the second sentence mixes behavioral caveat with remediation advice.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the fields an agent will get back — per-person load percentage, the causing tasks, and the date ranges above 100% — plus the availability formula behind the percentage. For a four-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing essential 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%, including date patterns, defaults and the granularity enum, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description reinforces granularity ('per day, week or month') but adds no syntax, format or default information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Shows how much each person on the project works... and who is over-allocated') and enumerates the output content (load as a percentage of availability, tasks causing it, date ranges above 100%). This is clearly separable from siblings like planitude_critical_path or planitude_portfolio_overview without opening any 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 is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for spotting over-allocation, and the second sentence explains how over-allocation gets resolved (move/reassign tasks, change assignment units) rather than which tool to use instead. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the 28 siblings.

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