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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), the description discloses what is computed per person and, importantly, that budget figures only appear 'for users who see budgets' — a permission-dependent output shape an agent must anticipate. It also warns the result is an estimate because docket has no capacity planning, which sets expectations about accuracy.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core question an agent asks, and the long second sentence is dense rather than padded. The em-dash chain makes it slightly harder to scan but every clause carries information about the return shape.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: per-person target hours left, open tickets due by week end, and remaining budgets/free hours. It also flags the estimation caveat and the permission gating. An agent has enough to decide and interpret results.

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%, and the description largely restates the schema: 'default: this week' vs. the schema's 'default today', and expertise matched against 'service and its category' vs. the schema's 'service or service category title'. It adds marginal clarification but no new semantics, so 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 opening clause 'Who still has room in a week' names a specific resource and scope (people with remaining capacity) and is instantly distinguishable from siblings like my_week or project_budgets. It never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear use context: default is the current week, and the optional expertise filter narrows to people with matching service/category. There are no exclusions or named alternatives ('use X instead when...'), so the guidance is contextual rather than prescriptive.

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