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

With no annotations, the description does useful work: it discloses that all visits are booked immediately, capped at 104, repeated in the shop's local time zone, and that overlaps or unavailable workers only produce warnings rather than blocks. It still omits permission requirements, atomicity, and what the response contains.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and each sentence adding distinct operational information. No filler or repetition.

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 an 11-parameter recurrence tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers some key behavior but leaves important gaps: how to choose between occurrences and until, what warnings look like, and what identifying information the created series returns.

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 only 9%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the freq enum, the 'every n' interval, the 104 cap, and time-zone behavior, but it does not explain the important distinction between occurrences and until, nor assignee_ids, notes, or title.

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 verb and resource: book a repeating visit for a job, with recurrence options daily/weekly/monthly every n. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the single-visit sibling visits_create.

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 'for a job' and 'repeating visit', but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus visits_create, no prerequisites such as job existence or worker availability, and no exclusions.

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