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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the deterministic return ordering (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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then dense with ordering and semantics detail in two tight sentences. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause conveys information an agent needs to interpret results.

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 correctly compensates by describing row ordering and the nature of travel_time_minutes, which is exactly the return-shape context an agent lacks. It is not exhaustive (no note on what fields a schedule row contains), but it covers the highest-value interpretive gaps.

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; the description earns above that by explaining the combined meaning of technician_id + scheduled_date and the sorting role of the stop_order field, which the schema only names. It still leaves date_from/date_to/work_order_id/page/per_page to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List work order schedules') and immediately glosses the domain concept as 'technician day plans', which tells an agent what a schedule actually represents. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby list_work_orders or get_work_order_schedule siblings, so it stops 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 concrete, actionable usage context: 'Filter by technician_id + scheduled_date to get one technician's ordered day', which tells the agent exactly how to obtain the common day-plan view. It offers no explicit when-not guidance and names no alternative tools, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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