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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default date and shop timezone, that cancelled visits are omitted, that quote prices are permission-gated, and that field workers only see their own list. It does not explicitly state read-only status or authentication requirements, but the behavioral context is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the core scope and then adds useful filtering and permissions details. It is dense but not repetitive, though the first sentence is long and could be easier to parse.

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 three-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description gives useful output and filtering context. However, it leaves significant gaps around parameter meanings, especially shop_id, and does not help the agent distinguish this tool from nearby scheduling and visit tools.

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 implies that person_id identifies the worker and that date defaults to tomorrow in shop time, but it never mentions shop_id, does not explain that shop_id is required, and does not clarify whether person_id can be omitted or what happens if it is.

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 states the resource and scope: a kit list for one worker and one day, with an enumerated set of contents. It does not explicitly name a retrieval verb or differentiate itself from related siblings such as schedule_list or visits_brief, 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?

Usage is implied by the scope (“one worker and one day”) and by the default date behavior, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus schedule_list, schedule_events, or visits_brief. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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