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

The description goes far beyond the simple boolean annotations by explaining critical behavioral aspects like privacy, data handling, and liability. It ensures the agent knows the signal 'never exposes health reasons to an employer or public board,' which is crucial context.

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?

The description is highly efficient, covering purpose, security, scope, and operational constraints in one focused block. Every sentence serves to define the tool's specific boundaries and value proposition.

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?

The description is highly complete for a complex, privacy-sensitive status tool. It defines the constraints (read-only, coarse), the scope (private blockers), and the limitations (not FFD), leaving no ambiguity about its expected behavior or limitations.

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?

Given the 0% schema description coverage, the description successfully translates abstract concepts into parameter types. It specifically references 'private blockers' and the available 'available/reduced/unavailable' states, which informs the agent how the inputs contribute to the minimal signal.

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 clearly defines the tool's function: projecting private human capacity into a minimal work-availability signal. It distinguishes its purpose from generic status updates by emphasizing the 'coarse' nature of the signal and its relation to a shared work graph.

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?

The definition explicitly guides usage by stating the tool is intended for a 'private capacity check-in' and provides the context that it should not be used as a 'fitness-for-duty' assessment. It defines the appropriate environment for the signal's use: a shared work graph.

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