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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for the extra semantics: date filters use the displayed start date even for shifts crossing midnight, and shift IDs change on archive/bulk edit so worklog references may be stale. That stale-ID warning is behavior an agent could not get from the schema and would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Four short clauses, each delivering distinct information, with the scope statement front-loaded. Slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity around 'next_offset' rather than being verbose.

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 and zero parameter documentation, the description should say more about what a page contains and what the filters (owner, jobtypes, location) select. The date and stale-ID notes are valuable, but half the callable surface remains unexplained.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the semantics of start_date/end_date (displayed start date, midnight-crossing shifts) and pagination, but says nothing about owner, jobtypes, location, or the limit cap of 50, and the 'next_offset' naming does not match any declared parameter.

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 recorded worklogs') plus explicit scope ('one page ... for the selected account'), which separates it from the singular smartplan_get_worklog. It stops short of naming sibling tools or explicitly excluding filtered variants.

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?

'continue with next_offset' gives pagination guidance, which is genuine usage direction, but the schema exposes an 'offset' parameter and no 'next_offset', leaving the agent to infer the mapping. There is no guidance on when to use this versus smartplan_get_worklog or the shift-listing tools.

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