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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds real context: the fields returned (start, end, headcount, note, visibility), the 25-per-page page size, and the underlying GET /shifts endpoint. It stops short of noting auth requirements, rate limits, or whether pagination totals are exposed.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then return fields, then sibling routing, then pagination. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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, the description enumerates the returned fields and the page size, and it correctly delegates assignment data to a sibling tool. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so location_id, range_start/range_end, working_area_id, tag_ids, and page are all documented in the schema itself, including date format and next_page chaining. The description only restates the filtering axes already in the schema and adds no format or edge-case detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: "List planned shifts of a location between two dates, optionally for one working area or tags." It also names the sibling that owns a related resource (papershift_list_shift_assignments), so an agent can distinguish it from that tool and from papershift_get_shift without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes assignment lookups to papershift_list_shift_assignments, which is a clear alternative with a stated condition. However, it gives no negative guidance (e.g., use get_shift for a single known shift id, or limits on range span), so the routing is partial rather than complete.

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