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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses read authorization ('any worker in the shop can read it') and the default behavior of hiding archived crews, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result volume. Solid access/filter disclosure, but incomplete behavioral picture.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core resource statement leads, followed by access and filter details. Slightly terse but every sentence earns its place.

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 2-param list tool with an output schema (so return shape is covered elsewhere), the description supplies resource scope, read permission, and the archive filter. Adequate to call it correctly; only ordering/pagination context is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the non-obvious include_archived flag ('Archived crews only with include_archived') well, and shop_id is inferable from 'the shop's crews'. However, it adds no format or scoping detail for shop_id and leaves include_archived's default unstated.

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 clearly identifies the resource and scope: the shop's crews and their current workers. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings crews_save and crews_archive by being the read/list operation. It stops short of an explicit 'list' verb, but the resource is unmistakable.

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?

'Any worker in the shop can read it' and 'Archived crews only with include_archived' imply usage context and the default archive exclusion, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs crews_save/crews_archive or any prerequisite. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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