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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that 'set_hours' and 'set_override' are mutations, that null clears values, that setting hours defines owner reachability in the account timezone, and that the get action returns a specific shape with mode_now reflecting immediate call routing. It also documents default behavior when no hours are set and the precedence of overrides.

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?

The description is long but information-dense, with every sentence contributing functional knowledge. It front-loads the core context of when the human answers versus Frontdesk, then follows a clear structure around the three actions. The compact notation and explicit caveat about the toggle demonstrate deliberate editing with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains all return fields for 'get', all possible values of mode_now, the data format for setting hours, the clearing semantics, override precedence, and the toggle exception. An agent has enough information to select the right action Cherry and construct valid parameters without needing external documentation.

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 description substantially enriches the schema's parameter definitions. While the schema explains the object shapes of 'hours' and 'override', the description adds day-key ranges (0–6, 0=Sunday), timezone context, the meaning of null to clear, the semantics of mode values 'emma' and 'me', and the behavior of expired overrides. It also explains exactly how the action parameter routes to each operation, which the schema leaves implicit.

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 clearly identifies the tool's resource (frontdesk settings) and enumerates the specific actions it supports: reading current settings, setting owner hours, and forcing a mode until a deadline. It distinguishes the semantics of each mode ('emma', 'ring_then_emma', 'ring_then_voicemail') with concrete examples, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description provides detailed when-to-use semantics: when hours are set versus unset, when Frontdesk answers versus ringing the owner, how overrides take precedence, and that expired overrides are ignored. It also states a critical exclusion—none of this applies when the 'Frontdesk answers' toggle is off—so the agent knows the boundary of the tool's effect without needing to inspect sibling tools.

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