Get a user's rota, public holidays and custom days

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that the call may fan out to 'up to six API calls,' which matters for latency/cost planning, and that returned names come from the system's own rota and pattern lists.

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 long, dense, run-on sentence that is grammatically hard to parse ('named from the system's rota list, and with include_patterns the public holiday...'). It is not padded with filler, but the structure obscures rather than front-loads the meaning.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the definition covers what the agent needs: what is returned, the conditional pattern fetch, and the API-call cost. It is slightly incomplete on return shape, but annotations cover safety and the schema covers inputs, so little is missing.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters fully, and the baseline is 3. The description does reinforce what include_patterns pulls in (public holiday and custom day patterns), but it adds little about include_contact_details or partner_user_id beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns one user's rota (working pattern) assignments with start dates, optionally plus public holiday and custom day patterns. It is clear what the tool retrieves, but it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings like get_user_entitlements or get_user, so it falls short of the 5 mark.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool the caller might want instead. The only implied usage cue is the include_patterns toggle, which is already documented in the schema rather than used to route the agent.

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