find_serving_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the API limitation (no individual slot assignments), what data is returned (ministries and recurrence pattern), and what is not (exact dates). This goes well beyond just stating the purpose.

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 well-structured with an important note section. It front-loads the primary purpose. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability. Could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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?

The tool has an output schema (true) and is moderately complex. The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (ministries and recurrence pattern) and its limitations. Given the context, it provides complete coverage of what an agent needs to know to use the tool correctly.

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?

Despite having 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (person_id, person_type). It does not explain the purpose of person_type (enum values) or any relationships. Given low schema coverage, this is a significant 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 clearly states the tool finds which Rotas ministries/teams/roles a person belongs to and their typical serving pattern. It uses specific verbs ('find') and resources ('ministries/teams/roles'), and distinguishes itself by explaining what it cannot do (exact dates), setting it apart from siblings like list_ministry_members.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to get ministry membership and recurrence pattern) and when not (to get exact next serving date). It provides an alternative: 'the user should check My ChurchSuite directly' for confirmed next serving dates. This is excellent guidance.

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