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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lighter. It usefully discloses the start/end pairing constraint and the upstream endpoint (GET /2/swaps), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior beyond what the schema notes, or the shape of the returned records beyond 'shifts and users involved'.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the code tables and the start/end constraint in tight sentences. Dense but every sentence carries information; the only mild cost is that the enumeration lists read as a run-on rather than structured.

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 9-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, the filter vocabularies, and the one cross-parameter constraint. What remains thin — default time window behavior and pagination/result-shape detail — is either in the schema or minor for a read-only listing call.

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 meaning the schema lacks: it decodes the integer status values (0 pending through 5 expired) and type values (1 swap, 2 drop, 3 alert), which the schema only labels generically as 'One or more statuses/types'. It also reinforces the start/end coupling constraint.

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 shift requests) and immediately narrows scope to the three record kinds — swaps, drops, alerts — plus the related shifts and users. This clearly separates it from siblings like wheniwork_list_shifts and wheniwork_list_time_off_requests without the agent needing to open a 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 only implied: an agent can infer that this is the tool for swap/drop/alert records, and the status/type enumerations hint at filtering. There is no explicit when-to-use versus wheniwork_list_shifts or wheniwork_get_shift, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. required permissions or whether a window is mandatory in practice).

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