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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it starts from the current week, explains the available-hours inputs, and defines over-booking via allocatedHours above capacityHours or overDays > 0. It still does not discuss permissions or error behavior, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses every sentence productively. The reporting scope and over-booking interpretation are presented without unnecessary repetition.

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 usefully identifies the key returned fields and over-booking logic, and the annotations cover the safety profile. It is largely complete for an agent to call the tool, though it does not fully describe the response shape or all possible returned fields.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description implies a forward-looking weekly range and user-local week boundaries, but does not add parameter-level syntax or defaults. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the resource and scope: weekly workload per person, comparing task hours against available hours from working calendar, capacity and leave. It is specific about the output and what over-booked means. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar reporting siblings such as get_resource_usage, 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?

Usage is implied by the weekly workload reporting context and the scope restriction 'Team roles only.' However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like get_resource_usage, and no exclusions beyond the team-role restriction.

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