schedule_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: that days are grouped by the server's local calendar day unless a timezone is supplied. However, it omits pagination behavior (hinted by cursor and returned_so_far params) and the exact output shape. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate because it adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the grouping behavior. There is zero waste; every clause carries meaning. It is concise and structured effectively.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining the return format. It states results are 'grouped by day' but does not detail whether the response contains a list of day objects, each with items, or a flat list with day labels. It also omits any mention of pagination (even though params like cursor, page_size, and returned_so_far imply it) and does not describe what 'visits and assessments' entails. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, these gaps are significant.

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 100%, so every parameter is already explained in the input schema. The tool description emphasizes timezone grouping, but that detail is also present in the schema's timezone parameter description ('to group days by; defaults to the server's local timezone'). The description adds marginal value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is warranted.

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 identifies the specific verb ('Return'), the exact resource ('Jobber visits and assessments'), and a defining constraint (date range, grouped by day). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobs_summary (summary statistics) or search_records (general search) without needing to open the schema.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies use for date-range schedule queries, it never mentions when not to use it or points to other tools for different needs (e.g., summaries, single records). An agent must infer usage from the resource type, which is insufficient given the number of sibling tools.

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