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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that myOnCall reflects the current moment ('currently on call') and cites the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or ordering.

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 short sentences, no filler, the required parameter and its procurement path are front-loaded ahead of the optional filter. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required input, and the one non-obvious filter. Only pagination/return-shape framing is absent, which is acceptable given the schema carries the cursor parameter.

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 adds real value by emphasizing teamId's required status and its source, and by framing myOnCall as the current on-call view rather than a generic boolean filter.

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 on-call schedules for a team') with the scope constraint (per-team) front and center. It also names the sibling squadcast_list_teams as the means to obtain the required id, so the agent can distinguish this from other list tools.

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?

Gives clear entry context: teamId is REQUIRED and where to get it (squadcast_list_teams), plus an explicit conditional use case for myOnCall ('the who's on call lens'). It does not state exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps this resource, so the omission is minor.

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