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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds that results are assignments with specific fields plus the underlying endpoint (GET /assignments). It does not disclose pagination behavior, default result limits, or how archived items interact with results beyond what the schema's show_archived already says.

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 with no filler: the resource definition and the field list come first, filtering second, endpoint last. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

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 7-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains what an assignment is and which fields come back, which is the main gap the schema cannot cover. Pagination semantics (default page size, total counts) are left implicit, keeping it just short of complete.

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 every parameter (q, start, end, page, per_page, employees, show_archived) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of date-range and employee filtering only echoes two of those parameters without adding format or semantic detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('List assignments') and then disambiguates the domain term by glossing it as 'planned jobs/appointments' with the returned fields spelled out. This clearly separates it from the singular craftboxx_get_assignment sibling, though it never explicitly contrasts with craftboxx_list_timesheets or craftboxx_list_projects.

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?

'Filter by date range or employee' implies the intended retrieval contexts, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-something-else guidance, and no mention of when the list endpoint is preferable to get_assignment for a known id.

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