Get Schedule Shifts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further and discloses non-obvious behavior: upstream rejects ranges over one month, and this tool splits and merges windows so a two-month query works transparently. That is exactly the kind of hidden limit an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 core purpose and the sibling routing are front-loaded in the first and last sentences. The middle paragraph about replacing generated getScheduleShifts is somewhat implementation-flavored, but it justifies the range-splitting behavior and is short enough to earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation; params are fully documented in the schema; annotations cover the safety profile. The added range-merging context closes the remaining gap an agent would otherwise hit as a runtime error.

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% and all three parameters carry ISO 8601 examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or default semantics for id/start_date/end_date beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'List shifts for one schedule over a date range.' The scope qualifier 'for one schedule' immediately separates it from the schedule-agnostic sibling list_shifts.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Use list_shifts instead when the question spans schedules or filters by user') and gives the exact conditions that select it. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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