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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the default week, that it compares against working hours, and that it surfaces gaps and possibly forgotten bookings, though it does not describe the output shape.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core measure and then enumerates the derived insights. It is dense but earns its length given the composite report, though the em-dash list could be structured more scannably.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so qualitatively by category (daily booked vs working hours, past gaps, unbooked due tickets, commented-on tickets without time). It stops short of describing result structure, which is a modest gap for a report tool.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema (format YYYY-MM-DD, any day in the week, default today), giving a baseline of 3. The description only restates the default as 'this week' and adds no syntax or interpretation guidance 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 specifies a concrete resource (the user's week) and a concrete measure (booked time vs working hours, day by day), plus the derived insights it returns. It clearly distinguishes itself from time-entry listing tools by being an aggregate report, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 returned content (gaps, forgotten bookings, commented tickets), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison to alternatives like team_capacity or financial_summary. An agent can infer the right context but is not guided.

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