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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the Basic plan requirement and the hard 62-day window with a default. It stops short of describing return shape or pagination behavior, but the added constraints are meaningful.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the constraints and endpoint. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description covers purpose, plan gating, and the date-window rule well. The only gap is that nothing hints at the paginated response (total/next_offset), which the schema mentions only incidentally.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description contributes a constraint the schema lacks: the at-most-62-day span for min_date/max_date and the today default. It adds genuine semantic value on top of an already well-documented schema.

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 (list) plus resource (open/unassigned shifts) and adds the business meaning — shifts employees can pick up. This clearly distinguishes it from the many list_* siblings (rosters, absences, timesheets, users).

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?

Provides concrete operating context: 62-day maximum date range, default of today when no dates are given, and a plan prerequisite. It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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