My roster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description correctly focuses on operational behavior: the default window of today through +7 days, ISO date format, and the UTC timezone caveat in this mode. Missing only deeper traits like pagination or large-result handling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 compact blocks—behavior, exclusion, returns—with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence carries non-redundant information.

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?

A read-only, three-optional-parameter tool with a full output schema; the description covers defaults, formats, timezone, sibling routing, and output shape. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by explaining what the null defaults actually do ('defaults to today through the next 7 days') and by specifying ISO YYYY-MM-DD, which the schema only hints at with 'ISO'. The response_format enum is echoed rather than elaborated.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List your own shifts in a date range') plus the data source ('your personal Deputy calendar feed'), which precisely delimits it from broader roster tools. The closing line about the single-next-shift sibling makes the boundary unmistakable.

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?

Explicit 'When NOT to use' clause names the alternative tool (deputy_next_shift) and the exact condition that selects it. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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