Pb Workload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of whether weeks defaults to a full horizon, how pagination behaves, or that results are computed against the named plan; it is consistent with but silent beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single non-bloated phrase, so nothing is wasted, but the terseness is under-specification rather than economy — there is no front-loaded statement of what the tool does or returns.

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 shape need not be described. However, with four parameters at 25% description coverage, a required plan_id, a paginated cursor, and an ambiguous weeks window, the description leaves real gaps an agent must guess at before a correct call.

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 only 25% — only cursor is documented ('From next_cursor.'). plan_id is required yet unexplained in both schema and description (presumably a plan from pb_build_plan), account_id is undocumented, and weeks is only obliquely implied by 'per person-week' with no statement of default horizon or allowed range.

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 fragment 'Hours allocated vs. available per person-week' describes the metric the tool reports, so an agent can guess it is a workload/capacity read. But it names no verb (compute? list? aggregate?) and does not distinguish it from siblings such as pb_forecast or pb_flow_metrics, which plausibly overlap in scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of what question this answers versus pb_forecast or pb_plan_summary, and no prerequisites such as needing a plan_id from pb_build_plan. The agent must infer placement among nine siblings purely from the metric name.

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