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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the exact data sources (Standing, due conditions by cadence, open claimable packets, unproven held packets), the ordering rule (due measurement first, then held, then rest by size), the gap-naming guarantee, the honest-empty-card case, the size heuristic and the no-travel caveat. The crew-card result is framed as a mutable suggestion, which is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot carry.

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 question it answers and the sources/ordering rules, which is the right ordering. It is dense but mostly earns its length; the one waste is repetition of the cost/signer facts ("Free, keyless, read-only" early, then "Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign" at the end).

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the description instead covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: inputs, source data, ordering, edge cases (no packet = gap, nothing open = empty card), crew semantics and cost/signer requirements. Nothing material is left to inference for a read-only single-place query.

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; the description earns above that by explaining that 'hours' bounds the blocks, that a due condition's measurement packet is its own unit, and that for a crew the wallet is the manager's address and packets are split whole across named members by their hours. It does not add format specifics for 'place' resolution clusters or defaults, which the schema already documents.

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 and resource: it compiles today's ordered work list for one place and one wallet/crew into 30-minute blocks, answering "what do I do here today." The closing clause explicitly contrasts it with the hour card ("the person still reads the hour card and claims for themselves") and disclaims posting/assigning/paying, so the boundary against adjacent siblings is visible 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?

The conditions that select this tool are clear: one place plus one wallet, or a named crew, for today's work. It also defines a what-not boundary (it never posts, assigns or pays) and hands off claiming to the person. It stops short of naming the direct alternative for planning a single worker's day (hour_card, find_work) with an explicit 'use X instead when...' rule, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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