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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the underlying endpoint (GET /businesses/{businessId}/rosters) but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or what a roster record contains.

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 the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing API-endpoint sentence is of marginal value to an agent but is at least compact.

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 five optional parameters, a nested filter object and no output schema, the description should say more about the returned roster structure and paging defaults. Adequate to call correctly, but thin for the tool's complexity.

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 the schema already explains sort, limit, offset, filter and business_id precisely. The description adds no format or semantics beyond its vague 'per resource and date' hint, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List staff work schedules (rosters)') with the scoping qualifiers 'per resource and date', which distinguishes it from list_bookings, list_resources and other siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reservio_list_resources or reservio_list_bookings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The phrase 'per resource and date' only faintly implies a filtering scenario.

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