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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'This operation is read-only and does not save data' largely restates structured data. The added nuance that it only computes and persists nothing is mildly useful, but there is no detail on cost, size limits, or failure behavior for a large nested project payload.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the payload convention and the read-only note. No filler, though the awkward 'either...or' sentence about the schedule could be tighter and more accurate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For an 8-parameter, deeply nested tool with no per-parameter docs, the description covers only the schedule-placement question and leaves the majority of the payload under-explained; the 'schedule' vs 'schedules' naming mismatch is a real ambiguity an agent could trip on.

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?

Per-parameter schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially by explaining how to supply the schedule (as a top-level property or inside the project schedules array). However, it names a 'schedule' property that does not exist in the schema (the schema has 'schedules'), and it says nothing about store, employees, preferences, availability, monthlyTargets or schemaVersion.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: 'Calculate per-store and per-employee statistics for a generated monthly schedule.' That is clearly distinct from sibling rotase_generate_schedule (which produces the schedule) and rotase_validate_project. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with them, so it stops 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 only implied: the operation applies to a 'generated monthly schedule', which suggests rotase_generate_schedule must run first, but this prerequisite is never stated. No guidance is given on when to use this instead of rotase_check_feasibility or rotase_validate_project, and no exclusions are listed.

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