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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does add value: it explains the domain model (areas own shifts and timesheets) and discloses that filtering switches the backend behavior from GET /OperationalUnit to POST .../QUERY. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result shape, but the added context is substantive for a read-only tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and definition, followed by the relation and filter note in two tight sentences. The trailing endpoint/verb string is developer-facing detail that is less useful to an agent but does not bloat the description.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers identity, domain relations, and the filter behavior for a 4-optional-param read tool whose schema is fully documented. Only the return shape and pagination contract are left implicit.

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 max, start, active, and location_id are already fully documented with ranges and semantics. The description only gestures at the location filter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.

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, then disambiguates with the underlying Deputy entity name (OperationalUnits) and a concrete definition ('the rosterable sections of a location, e.g. Kitchen, Front of house'). The relation to shifts and timesheets further separates it from siblings like deputy_list_locations.

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?

'Optionally only one location's areas' implies the filter use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. call deputy_list_locations first to obtain a location_id). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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