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

The description provides crucial behavioral context far beyond the read-only hint. It details data mutation behavior (Shift IDs change on archive/bulk edit), data persistence (worklogs are historical records), and specific operational logic (date filters include shifts crossing midnight).

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?

The description is highly condensed. While four separate points are crammed into the text, every phrase—from scope to data lifecycle—is necessary, making it efficient despite its density.

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 single-record historical API, this description is comprehensive. It covers the safety profile (read-only), data integrity risks (ID changes), and functional constraints (date filtering/midnight handling), leaving no critical piece of context 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description is essential. However, since there is only one parameter (id), the description does not add meaningful semantic depth beyond the schema's definition of the ID itself. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate here.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves a 'One worklog by ID', which is highly specific. It clearly distinguishes this function from list operations by naming the resource (worklog) and the method (by ID).

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?

It implies usage—you use this tool when you possess a specific worklog ID—but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling list functions. The usage is self-evident from the ID requirement.

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