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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description substantially enriches them: the compilation inputs (Standing, due conditions by cadence, open claimable packets, held-but-unproven packets), the ordering rule (due condition first, then held, then by size), gap-honest behavior, empty-card honesty, the assumed-hour default for unstated sizes, and no travel counting. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot provide.

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 ordering logic, then constraints. It is long and dense with comma-chained clauses, but for a tool this behaviorally complex nearly every sentence carries load, so length is largely justified rather than padded.

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 tool is complex, but the description covers ordering, inputs, gap/empty handling, sizing defaults, crew semantics, and the read-only boundary, while annotations cover safety and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the crew syntax is shown with per-member hours ("amina:6,joseph:4") and the crew card's behavior ("splits whole packets across the named members by hours and is a suggestion the manager may change"), plus that wallet is the manager for a crew.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("today's list of work in order, in blocks of 30 minutes") and scopes it precisely to one place plus one wallet or crew. It also explicitly carves itself apart from the mutation tools by stating it "ORDERS EXISTING WORK AND NEVER POSTS, ASSIGNS OR PAYS," so an agent can distinguish it from prepare_*/submit_* siblings without opening a 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?

It frames the use case directly ("what do I do here today") and gives clear boundaries: read-only ordering, no scheduling, no packet splitting, and the person "still reads the hour card and claims for themselves." It implicitly routes claiming to hour_card rather than naming alternatives explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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