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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by specifying the constraint categories checked and reaffirming 'does not save or modify the project.' It stops short of describing what a positive/negative result looks like, but the output schema carries that.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and constraint scope, followed by placement guidance and safety. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers purpose, timing and safety for this complex tool. The remaining gap is parameter guidance, which the external schema partially covers via its top-level description.

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?

Property-level schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not — it only says a 'complete Rotase project' is needed, without explaining store, employees, schedules, preferences, availability, monthlyTargets or schemaVersion. The schema's top-level object description partially rescues this by naming required sections, but the tool description itself adds almost nothing about the 8 parameters.

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 (check) and resource (schedule feasibility) and enumerates the exact constraints evaluated: opening hours, staffing, availability, rest rules and work-hour limits. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rotase_generate_schedule, which produces a schedule rather than testing whether one is possible.

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 explicit sequencing ('after rotase_validate_project and before generation') and the triggering user intent ('whether a schedule is possible'), naming both adjacent siblings. An agent can place this tool correctly in the workflow without inference.

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