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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the sort order (date, then stop_order with nulls last, then start time) and the caveat that travel_time_minutes is only a straight-line estimate from the previous stop.

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, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the ordering details. The second sentence is dense but every clause carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does cover the key ordering rules and the travel_time_minutes semantics. It does not enumerate other returned fields, but for a filtered list tool this is largely sufficient, especially with the schema handling all inputs.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the combined effect of technician_id + scheduled_date, the sort role of stop_order, and the estimation caveat on travel_time_minutes, rather than merely restating parameters.

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+resource and adds a clarifying synonym ('technician day plans'), plus describes the ordering semantics of the result set. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the get_work_order_schedule sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 concrete usage pattern (combine technician_id + scheduled_date to get one technician's ordered day), which implies when the tool is most useful. However, it names no alternative tool and offers no when-not guidance, leaving usage to inference.

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