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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses several important traits: the feed is read-only, the link is shown only once, and creating a new feed disables that person's old one. It does not cover edge cases such as feed expiration or whether revocation is immediate.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then immediately covering the important parameter default and side effects. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundancy.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral context and person_id usage well. The main remaining gap is that the required shop_id parameter is not mentioned in the description, though the schema marks it as required.

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 description fully explains the optional person_id parameter, including its default and permission implications. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the required shop_id parameter is not described at all, leaving half the parameters without added semantic guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: making a calendar feed link (.ics) of one worker's visits. It also clearly distinguishes this create operation from the sibling list and revoke operations by describing the subscription artifact being created.

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 context for person_id: omit it for your own feed, or use it for another current member if you are an owner or office. It does not explicitly name calendar_listFeeds or calendar_revokeFeed as alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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