Solve a shift schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states the call is synchronous, returns within ~30 seconds, is charged per call, and requires an API key with quota. This covers latency, cost, and authentication—key behavioral aspects beyond the schema.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds behavioral constraints (synchronous, timeout), and the third gives a usage tip and a link to the full schema. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one complex parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context by referencing the external OpenAPI schema for request/response details, covering prerequisites (validation, API key), and describing latency/cost. It does not spell out the return structure directly, but the external link fills that gap.

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 schema already thoroughly describes the single `request` parameter (100% coverage) including its contents (schedule_period, shifts, duties, etc.). The description's additional mention of 'solver_timeout_seconds' is useful but not required to understand the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with 'Run the Shiftyasan solver on a shift scheduling request payload,' using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Shiftyasan solver') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_shift_input. The intent to actually solve a shift schedule is unmistakable.

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 'Tip: call validate_shift_input first' gives an explicit alternative to use for validation before invoking this tool. It also states the synchronous behavior and mention of charging helps agents decide when to call it, though it does not explicitly mention when to use get_solve_job.

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