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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, by disclosing what the result contains (clock-in/out times, weekday, availability, recurrence) and the underlying GraphQL entity. It omits pagination/size limits and default behavior when staff_ids is omitted.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb/resource/scope before the returned-field list, with zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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 usefully enumerates what is returned, and the schema fully documents inputs. Slight gap: no mention of pagination, result limits, or default staff filtering for a list endpoint over a date range.

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% (4 params, all documented, including format and location id example), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description reinforces the date-range and single-location concepts but adds no syntax or behavior beyond the schema; 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 (list) and resource (staff working shifts) with scope (one location, date range) and enumerates the returned concepts (clock-in/out, weekday, availability, recurrence). The 'shifts' resource is distinguishable from the sibling boulevard_list_staff roster tool, and the GraphQL field mapping ('shifts') adds precision.

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 scope phrasing ('at one location for a date range') implies when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or naming of an alternative (e.g., list_staff for a staff roster vs shifts for schedules). Usage must be inferred.

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