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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: 'Tasks keep their length' tells the agent levelling only shifts start/end rather than shortening work, and 'across every project of the workspace' discloses the blast radius of the preview. It leaves unanswered how far tasks slide or whether weekends/holidays are factored in, keeping it short of a 5.

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 core purpose and the no-change guarantee are front-loaded in the first sentence. It is tight overall, but the trailing 'Administrator or ProjectManager.' is a sentence fragment that interrupts flow before the final imperative.

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?

For a read-only preview tool with a single fully documented optional parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, side-effect profile, and permission requirement. Without an output schema, it could say a bit more about what the preview returns (per-task shifted dates?), but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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 the single utcOffsetMinutes parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the UTC+7 example and the 'today/this week' semantics. The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it shows which tasks workload levelling would slide later, across every project of the workspace. It is clearly distinguishable from apply_levelling (which mutates) and from preview_auto_schedule, since the description names the levelling concept and the no-change scope.

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?

Explicitly says 'Show this to the user before apply_levelling' — naming the alternative and the exact ordering condition. It also states the negative constraint ('without changing anything'), so the agent knows when not to reach for the mutation sibling.

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