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 important traits: output event statuses, shop time zone, inclusive 'to' date, 62-day maximum range, and uid reuse. It does not mention authentication or pagination, but the operational behavior is substantially covered.

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 dense but front-loaded and free of filler. The parenthetical output-field list is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but it also helps clarify calendar-event shape and uid persistence.

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 7-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description covers key date semantics and filtering but omits explanations for updated_since, include_cancelled, and shop_id. Those omissions matter for calendar-sync and filtering use cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains date semantics (time zone, inclusive 'to', 62-day limit) and 'worker or mine' filtering, but leaves shop_id, updated_since, and include_cancelled unaddressed.

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 resource and scope: visits between two dates rendered as calendar events, with named output fields. It distinguishes the tool from generic listing tools by framing the result as calendar-ready with uid persistence for later updates.

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 usage context: the results are 'ready to copy into an outside calendar' and the uid should be saved to update the same event later. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as schedule_list or visits_get, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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