Check Deputy connection

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, but the description adds important context about iCal feed mode, no API token, roster-only availability, and the returned fields. This is useful behavioral detail beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded, tightly scoped, and uses separate sentences for purpose, exclusions, and return behavior without unnecessary text.

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?

It covers connection confirmation, configuration limits, alternative tools, and output shape. With an output schema present, this is more than complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 response_format parameter is already documented in the schema. The description still adds value by naming the JSON return object fields and restating the markdown/json behavior.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Confirm the Deputy connection.' It also clarifies the configuration-specific behavior and explicitly distinguishes this tool from shift-reading siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit 'When NOT to use' section and names the correct alternatives, deputy_get_my_roster and deputy_next_shift, for reading shifts.

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