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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are ordered earliest first, status reflects mobile-app visibility, and it requires a Cotlet API key with access to this app.

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?

Four sentences, no filler, with scope and return ordering front-loaded before the status semantics and the auth note. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; slightly terse transitions between fragments.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so partially (ordering, included fields, status meaning). Read-only annotations cover safety and the schema is fully documented, leaving only pagination/result-size behavior unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the published/draft enum values are explained in terms of whether crews can see the shift in the mobile app. from/to and employee_ids are left to the schema, which is adequate given full coverage.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (list scheduled shifts) and immediately scopes it: date range, published and draft, with employee/job/task/times/notes attached. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like clockshark_list_time_entries or clockshark_list_clocked_in without opening the schema.

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?

It frames the tool around a date-range query and points forward to the natural follow-up ('Use shift_id with publish_shifts'), which tells the agent this is the discovery step for a publish workflow. It stops short of naming an alternative when the agent wants time entries or clocked-in staff, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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