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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the availability mode is sorted lightest-first, and both modes return booked minutes plus job count. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a read-only aggregate this is solid.

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-loads the core value ("Per-technician capacity in ONE call") and then spends each following clause on mode-specific semantics. No filler, no repeated annotation content.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the returned fields (booked minutes, job count) and the ordering for the availability mode. That is enough for correct invocation, though units or result-size expectations are 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 required/optional relationship of date, from_date and to_date to each mode is fully documented in the schema. The description's mode-to-parameter mapping largely restates those schema descriptions and adds no format or constraint detail beyond them. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 resource (per-technician capacity) and enumerates the two modes with their distinct inputs and outputs (booked minutes + job count, lightest first). It clearly separates itself from find_jobs by naming it as the alternative to looping. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like tech_workload or get_tech_performance, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 mode-selection guidance: date for availability, from_date/to_date for workload, and the key directive "Use this instead of looping find_jobs per tech." That is a concrete when-to-use rule with a named alternative. It lacks a when-not-to-use note relative to the similarly named tech_workload sibling.

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