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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behaviour, and the description adds beyond that: the three shift measures (original/planned/worked), the unit (hours), the associated metadata fields and the endpoint shape. Pagination and response envelope details are left to the schema rather than restated, which is appropriate.

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 plus the endpoint line, with the payload description front-loaded and the use cases immediately after. The trailing GET path is mildly redundant but the whole text earns its space.

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 carries the return shape and does so by naming the three shift measures and the accompanying employee/department attributes. Pagination and limits are handled in the input schema, so the remaining gap is only in fine-grained field structure.

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 100%, so the two date parameters, limit/offset and department_id are already fully documented. The description only implies the date-range and department dimensions, adding no format or filtering nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: returns original, planned and worked shift hours per employee and day for a date range, plus the key fields returned. The scope is clear enough for an agent to identify it without the sibling context, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent tools like tamigo_list_absences or tamigo_list_employee_details.

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?

"Use it for payroll checks, hours worked vs planned and who worked when" gives concrete usage contexts that map to real intent. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at an alternative, so it is strong but not complete.

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