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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, and the description is consistent with that. It adds genuinely useful context by explaining that a location's id is the location_id every shift belongs to, but says nothing about return size, pagination, 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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the terminology clarification an agent needs. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an existing readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool is and what its ids mean. Only pagination/return-shape detail is absent, which is minor at this complexity.

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 single optional parameter (only_unconfirmed) is already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not reference the filter, adding no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (schedules/locations) and resolves a real terminology trap by stating the API calls a schedule a 'location'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as wheniwork_list_shifts or wheniwork_list_positions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'List the schedules in the account', which tells the agent this is the account-wide enumeration call. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives like wheniwork_list_shifts for shift data.

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