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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: results are ordered by start time, time off reflects Future Time Off set in Workiz, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the return shape, then the auth note. Slightly repetitive ('as on the Workiz calendar' vs 'the future time off set in Workiz'), but every sentence carries information.

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 burden and does so: each team member with jobs and time off, ordered by start time. Combined with the auth requirement, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool.

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 schema already documents from, to, and tech_ids with defaults. The description only restates the day-or-range notion and adds no format or filtering detail beyond the schema. 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: returns jobs and time off per technician for a day or range, mirroring the Workiz calendar. It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like workiz_reschedule_job or workiz_create_job, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 via the benefit phrase 'so your agent can see who has open slots,' which hints at availability-checking use. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor any named alternative for a different scheduling question.

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