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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest. It adds real behavioral context: overlap inclusion ('A job that merely overlaps the window is included'), brand scope ('Covers every brand the user holds'), and the fields returned per entry. Missing pagination/limits behavior keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the detail sentences. Each sentence carries information (overlap rule, brand coverage, return fields) with no filler, though it is slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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 read tool with 3 fully-documented params and read-only annotations, the description covers the window semantics, overlap behavior, scope breadth, and return payload. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: the times must be 'ISO 8601 with an offset' (tighter than the generic date-time format) and clarifies resource_id as an optional single-engineer filter.

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 ('List') and resource ('jobs scheduled between two times') with precise scope ('optionally for one engineer'). This is readily distinguishable from siblings like get_job (single job) and get_availability, and no schema-opening is needed to understand it.

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 the clear scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or exclusion of other tools. It never says to prefer this over search or get_job, or what happens if the window is huge.

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