Repeat no-shows and missed clock-outs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by indicating that the tool aggregates and ranks employees rather than returning raw event records, and that output includes counts and rates.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core behavior, and the second provides practical usage examples. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema and five optional parameters, the description communicates the result shape reasonably well through 'counts and rates' and 'Rank employees.' It could more explicitly contrast with missing_clock_events or define the repeat threshold, but the name, title, and min_times parameter cover most of that gap.

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 80%, with from, to, location, and min_times already described. The description adds general framing about ranking and rates but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Rank employees by no-shows and missed clock-outs, with counts and rates.' This clearly conveys what the tool does and distinguishes it from the sibling missing_clock_events through the 'repeat' framing and ranking behavior.

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?

The description explicitly provides usage context with natural-language question examples: 'who keeps not turning up' and 'who forgets to clock out.' It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for selection in most cases.

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