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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, and the description goes further by enumerating the response payload (employee, shift type, team, creator/changer) and citing the exact REST path. It still omits failure behavior such as what happens with a stale or malformed occurrence_id.

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 sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and selector before the endpoint. Every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the returned entity and its annotations cover the safety profile, leaving little for an agent to guess. Only edge-case behavior (unknown occurrence_id, recurring-shift semantics) is unaddressed.

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% and the schema already documents the occurrence_id format including the '<roster id>:<yyyy-mm-dd>' recurring-shift variant. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond restating the parameter name, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (get), resource (a single scheduled shift) and the exact selector (occurrence_id), and even names the fields returned plus the underlying endpoint. An agent can distinguish this from shiftbase_list_rosters or shiftbase_get_timesheet immediately.

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 singular framing ('One scheduled shift by its occurrence_id') implies this is the detail lookup once you have an id, but the description never states when to prefer it over shiftbase_list_rosters or what to do if the id is unknown. Where the id comes from is only noted in the schema, not the description.

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