w2w_get_daily_position_totals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool shows assigned shifts and hours per day, broken down by position, and supports automatic pagination for ranges over 31 days. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond a simple 'gets data' statement. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, error handling, or rate limits, which would be additional context but are not critical for this simple read operation.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that each serve a clear purpose. The first sentence states the core function, and the second elaborates on the output content and pagination behavior. There is no redundancy or filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse and act upon.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It conveys the purpose, what is returned, and a key behavioral aspect (pagination). While a more explicit description of the return structure could be beneficial in the absence of an output schema, the provided details are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively. The lack of mention of alternative tools slightly reduces completeness in a broader context.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions and example format. The description adds value by noting that ranges over 31 days trigger automatic pagination, which explains the combined effect of start_date and end_date beyond what the schema specifies. This enhances understanding of how the parameters interact, meriting a score above the baseline of 3.

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 states the tool gets daily schedule totals by position for a date range from When2Work. It identifies the action (get), resource (daily schedule totals by position), and scope (date range). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool w2w_get_daily_totals, which likely provides similar totals without the position breakdown.

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 implies usage: when you need daily schedule totals broken down by position. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Given the existence of the sibling tool w2w_get_daily_totals, the lack of guidance on selecting between them is a notable gap. The guidance is present but implied rather than explicit.

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