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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: the result set is scoped by permission (see_costs) and by role (a field worker sees only their own rate plus the shop default), and it includes upcoming rates, not just current ones. It omits anything about ordering or error behavior, but the key access-scoping trait is disclosed.

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 clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the permission gate, then the visibility rule. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and the permission/visibility behavior is covered. The gap is the undocumented shop_id, but for a one-parameter read tool the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation.

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 single required parameter shop_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what shop scoping means for the returned rates. With coverage below 50%, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 the resource precisely (labor cost rates currently in force, including shop default, per-worker rates, and upcoming rates). 'Labor cost' distinguishes it from the sibling taxes_listRates, though the retrieval verb is only implied by 'in force now' rather than stated outright.

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?

Gives one concrete prerequisite ('Needs see_costs') and explains visibility scoping for field workers, which is useful selection context. However, it never states when to use this versus timesheets_setRate or timesheets_list, so usage is only implied.

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