validate_work_window

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

The description discloses the output format (allowed, conditional, or prohibited verdict) and that it includes constraints breached and by how much. It also states the tool is deterministic and authoritative, setting clear expectations for behavior. It does not detail the exact conditions for each verdict, but for a validation tool this is adequate and is not a major gap.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant phrases. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and behavior without fluff, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description fully covers the necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it differs from a sibling. The existence of an output schema (even if not shown) is not a barrier because the description already specifies the expected output shape. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 provides rich descriptions for the nested fields (work_code, window, and weather properties), so the parameter semantics are already well-defined. The description text does not add explicit parameter details beyond implicitly referencing 'work type' and 'day of weather.' Since the schema coverage is strong, the description's minimal contribution is acceptable, but it does not elevate the score beyond the baseline.

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's function: evaluating whether a work type may proceed under given weather. It explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool plan_work_schedule, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Use this to check a single work-day; use plan_work_schedule when you need to place several works across a forecast.' This leaves no ambiguity about appropriate invocation scenarios.

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