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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that open shifts and draft/unpublished shifts are opt-in inclusions, but the actual permission requirements for those flags live in the schema descriptions rather than here. Useful but not rich behavioral context.

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 tight sentences: what is returned first, optional scope second, with the API endpoint as a trailing aside. No filler and the core capability is front-loaded.

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 wide read-only list tool with no output schema and 13 fully documented params, the description covers purpose, scope, and intent mapping adequately. It omits pagination/limit behavior and time-window defaulting, which an agent calling with 13 optional params would benefit from knowing.

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 every one of the 13 parameters is already documented with format, bounds, and permission notes. The description only gestures at 'open shifts and unpublished drafts' without adding syntax or default behavior beyond the schema. 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 (list scheduled shifts) plus the returned fields (who works when, where, position) and the optional scope expansions (open shifts, unpublished drafts). This cleanly separates it from the singular sibling wheniwork_get_shift.

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?

Gives concrete trigger questions ('who is on on Friday?', 'what open shifts are left?') that map user intent to this tool. It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling like wheniwork_get_shift or wheniwork_list_shift_swaps instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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