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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's "Read-only" is redundant. "Shows the schedule grid with every check" adds a bit of return-content context, but with an output schema present even that is largely covered elsewhere.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by what it shows. The trailing "Read-only" restates the annotations and is mildly redundant, keeping it from a 5.

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 covering returns, complete parameter documentation, and rich annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs to select the tool. Only the absence of guidance on sibling alternatives leaves a small gap.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the "this"/"next"/"last"/YYYY-MM-DD values for week_start and default behavior. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: shows a week's schedule, its open shifts, and its problems. The read-only framing implicitly sets it apart from siblings like edit_shifts, copy_week, and publish_week, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a clear trigger ("Use this when the user wants to see a week's schedule, its open shifts or its problems"), which covers the main intents. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions of a 5.

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