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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the GraphQL field name (timeblocks) and the per-location scoping ("at one location"), which is useful context, but it says nothing about result volume, ordering, or cancellation filtering behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope; the parenthetical examples of timeblock types earn their place by clarifying the resource. Zero filler.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema-level parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, scope, and data domain adequately. Pagination and return shape are handled in the schema, so nothing essential is missing, though a hint about filtering by staff or date range would round it out.

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 (after, first, query, location_id) are already fully documented in the schema, including the QueryString syntax and cursor semantics. The description's "at one location" only loosely reinforces location_id and adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb+resource ("List blocked time on staff calendars") with the scope narrowed to one location, and it disambiguates the domain by enumerating what a timeblock is (breaks, meetings, personal time). It does not explicitly reference the sibling boulevard_create_timeblock, but the List/Create verb split is self-evident.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for blocked time at a location, and the required location_id is evident from the schema. There is no stated when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives such as boulevard_list_shifts or boulevard_get_appointment.

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