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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds real value by disclosing overlap semantics (not containment), the earliest-first ordering, and the field-worker visibility scoping. It omits whether cancelled or unassigned visits appear by default, pagination, and permission requirements beyond the field-worker note.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and how it is ordered. No wasted clauses, though the filter and visibility notes could be slightly tighter.

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?

The output schema exists, so return format need not be described. But with 8 params at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves meaningful gaps (required date window, unassigned, include_cancelled) for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and there are 8 parameters. The description maps 'worker', 'job', and 'mine' to person_id, job_id, and mine, but says nothing about shop_id, from/to being required, unassigned, or include_cancelled — leaving nearly half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific resource (a shop's visits), scope (overlapping a time window), and ordering (earliest first), which an agent can act on immediately. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from scheduley siblings like schedule_events or schedule_openSlots, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

'Filter by worker, job, or only mine' gives implied filtering scenarios, and the permission note about field workers is useful context. However, it never says when to use this versus schedule_events or schedule_findTime/openSlots, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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