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

Annotations declare the write-ish flags, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it creates a DRAFT only, nothing on Google changes, overnight hours are unsupported, and unnamed days are untouched. Those constraints cannot be inferred from readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true alone.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by constraints and the publish workflow. No filler, and every sentence changes how an agent would call the tool.

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, and the description refers to 'the draft this returns' without describing its shape, though it does instruct the agent to surface it verbatim. For a draft-then-publish mutation tool with no annotations covering the approval flow, the operational picture is otherwise complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry the semantics, and it does: named days are replaced, unnamed days preserved, split shifts need two entries per day, overnight ranges are rejected. The per-field meaning of open/close/closed is left to the nested schema descriptions, so it stops 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 verb and resource ('Draft new weekly hours for the days named') and scopes it as weekly, which separates it from the sibling propose_holiday_hours. The partial-update rule ('Days not named stay exactly as they are') makes the effect of calling it unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: draft first, show the owner the returned draft word for word, then publish via the named sibling publish_change only after approval. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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