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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the bar is lowered. The description adds modest value by characterizing the returned payload and noting that open shifts and drafts are optional inclusions, but the permission requirements for those flags (supervisor/manager) live only in the schema, and nothing is said about pagination or how the limit interacts with the result set.

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?

The scope statement and optional-inclusion clause are front-loaded, and the example questions earn their place by clarifying intent. The trailing 'When I Work: GET /2/shifts' endpoint reference is mildly extraneous for an agent that cannot call the REST API directly.

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 13-parameter tool with no required fields and no output schema, the description covers purpose and payload but omits default behavior when start/end are omitted, how limit/pagination behaves, and how the many boolean flags combine. Adequate, but an agent still has meaningful gaps to infer.

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% across all 13 parameters, with formats, bounds, and permission notes already documented per-field. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List scheduled shifts in a time window') and enumerates the payload contents — who, when, where, position — which clearly separates it from the singular wheniwork_get_shift and from wheniwork_list_shift_swaps. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the 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?

It supplies concrete usage questions ('who is on on Friday?', 'what open shifts are left?') that map cleanly onto the tool's intended calls, giving strong context for when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use get_shift for a single shift, list_shift_swaps for swap requests), so it is clear context rather than explicit routing.

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