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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the underlying REST endpoint (GET /api/v1/resource/Roster/{id}), which is modestly useful context, but says nothing about error behavior (e.g., not-found) or the shape of the returned record.

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, zero filler, and the identity of the resource is front-loaded before the endpoint detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-param getter this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description could have said what a shift record contains or what happens on a missing id. The endpoint reference partially compensates, leaving a clear gap.

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% with a single documented integer parameter, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description only restates "by id" and adds no format, range, or lookup semantics beyond the schema.

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 ("Fetch") and resource ("one shift (Roster record) by id"), which distinguishes it from the list/create/update shift siblings by implying single-record retrieval. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it isn't a textbook 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid shift_id), and no contrast with deputy_list_shifts or deputy_query_resource. "By id" weakly implies the use case but nothing is stated.

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