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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this with 'Only READS' and adds the useful disclosure that the tool reports back when no coordinates exist rather than silently failing. It doesn't cover result timing, scale limits, or what apply_schedule consumes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 core purpose, then prerequisites, then routing to siblings. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the em-dash-laden opening clause packs several output concepts into one sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the delivered fields (assignment, order, per-visit start time, km, drive minutes), the precondition, the failure message, and the next tool to call. An agent has everything needed to invoke and act on it.

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 date, tech_userids and service_minutes are already documented, including the defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the correct baseline for a fully-covered schema.

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 (plan) and resource (one day's routes) and defines the output shape: technician-to-job assignment, visit order, start times, km and drive minutes. It clearly separates itself from sibling tools by naming plan_job_distribution as the fallback and apply_schedule as the mutation step.

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?

Explicit routing: use this tool when jobs have coordinates, use plan_job_distribution when none do, and use apply_schedule to persist the result. The prerequisite condition (job coordinates) and the follow-up action are both stated without inference.

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