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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the important behavioral fact that it returns a proposal (per-job assignments plus what couldn't be placed) and does not persist anything on its own. This 'plan vs. commit' disclosure is genuinely useful beyond the annotation, though it omits details like pagination or ordering.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then read-only disclosure, then the forward action. The scoping constraint and the commit step are each front-loaded where they matter.

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 compensates by describing what is returned (a proposed assignment per job and unplaceable jobs) and the call to apply_schedule to persist. Combined with 100% schema coverage it is nearly self-sufficient, missing only its relationship to the route-planning sibling.

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 all four parameters (date range, default_minutes, cap_minutes_per_day) are already fully documented with ranges and defaults. The description alludes to the daily cap and booked minutes but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so 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 (plan/assign) with exact scope: 'which open, unassigned job over a date range' and the balancing objective (booked minutes under a daily cap). An agent can tell exactly what the tool produces (a proposed assignment per job) 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up tool: 'To make it real, pass the assignments to apply_schedule,' making the read/commit split clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similar sibling plan_day_routes or state when not to use it, so it falls short of 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.