unifier_schedule_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait that this is read-only ('Planificación de solo lectura') plus the chained/conditional read behavior. It does not mention auth needs, pagination, error modes when the shell is invalid, or what the chained read returns.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the read-only safety note and the primary action before the conditional branch. Little waste, though the conditional clause is packed tightly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and a nested parameter object, the description covers the tool's overall shape and the conditional escalation but leaves return values and most parameter meaning unexplained. It is adequate to understand intent, not to invoke confidently.

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 0% with three parameters including a nested sheet_filter object. The description only clarifies source_project_id's role as an opt-in trigger for chained reading; project_number and the entire nested sheet_filter (name/status/main_sheet/sheet_lock) are left completely undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 validates the shell, queries Schedule Sheets, and (conditionally) reads activities to surface overdue/upcoming items and milestones. This distinguishes it from generic siblings like unifier_project_health, though the overlap with that sibling is not explicitly resolved.

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 one clear conditional rule — 'if source_project_id is provided' the tool escalates to chained activity reading — which implies when the deeper mode activates. However, it gives no guidance on when to pick this over unifier_project_health or unifier_read_shell_360, nor any prerequisites.

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