Summarise staffing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds specific behavioral context by stating that it summarises rostered vs completed staffing, which is beyond what annotations provide. There is no contradiction.

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 concise sentence (9 words) that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without any wasted words or redundancy.

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, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the core functionality. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand what the tool does, though it does not elaborate on the return format or precise meaning of 'rostered and completed'.

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 description adds the context of grouping by 'location and local day', which corresponds to location_ids and the date parameters, but does not detail each parameter. Since schema description coverage is 75% and the schema descriptions for required parameters are already informative, the description provides moderate additional semantic value.

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 verb 'summarise' and the resource 'rostered and completed staffing' with dimensions 'by location and local day'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the siblings have distinct purposes such as 'find_coverage_gaps' or 'flag_overtime_risk', making the purpose distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The sibling tools are listed in context but the description itself does not mention them or any conditions for usage.

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