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 genuine non-obvious behavior: this is a projected read that omits clients, notes, form answers and private URLs, which tells the agent not to expect contact or notes data here and to look elsewhere for it.

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, zero filler, with the lookup key and the field-projection caveat both front-loaded. Every clause carries information the schema does not.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description says which fields are omitted but not which fields are actually returned, which leaves the response shape partly unknown. For a trivial one-parameter read with readOnly annotations, that is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 0% — the schema only names the field "id" as an integer — so the description must compensate, and it does by identifying the value as the numeric professionalId. It stops short of giving format examples or stating that the id must be positive, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 ("Read one scheduling staff member") plus the lookup key (numeric professionalId), which cleanly separates it from the sibling timetap_list_staff. An agent can pick this over the list variant without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by "Read one ... by its numeric professionalId" — the single-record counterpart to list_staff — but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over timetap_list_staff or timetap_get_appointment, nor what to do if the id is unknown. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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