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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by enumerating the returned content (assignments, statuses, breaks, notes, tasks) and the endpoint path. It stops short of noting auth scope or rate limits.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the key retrieval scope and returned fields are front-loaded before the endpoint reference.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing return content, which it does at a summary level. It is nearly complete for a get-by-id tool, missing only explicit sibling routing and auth/limit context.

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% for both required parameters (shift_id with its source, scheduler_id), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (get) and resource (shift) with clear scope: a single shift 'by its id' plus the fields it carries (assignments, statuses, breaks, notes, tasks) and the underlying endpoint. It implicitly distinguishes itself from connecteam_list_shifts, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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: 'by its id' signals a single-resource lookup, and the schema notes the id comes from connecteam_list_shifts. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_shifts or create_shift, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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