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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the GET endpoint and the shape of returned records, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default filtering of deleted requests, or result ordering beyond what the schema already documents.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the returned content. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully names the returned fields (status, shifts, users). Combined with 100% parameter coverage and a readOnly annotation, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though it lacks guidance on result volume or pagination expectations.

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%: limit, offset, and include_deleted are each explained in the schema itself (including the next_offset chaining hint). The description names no parameters, so it adds nothing here; 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 ('List shift swap requests') and enumerates what the payload carries (status, shifts, users involved), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. No other sibling targets swap requests, so no differentiation is required. It stops just short of a 5 because it doesn't contrast itself with adjacent list tools such as rotacloud_list_shifts.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives – it never says when to reach for this over rotacloud_get_shift or rotacloud_list_shifts. Only the resource name implies usage.

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