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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. However, the description adds real context the annotation does not: the supported cluster types, the availability exclusion, and the 20-schedule cluster limit. It does not cover pagination or output shape, but the added scope/side-effect context is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then return fields, then usage routing – a logical order with no filler sentences. The middle sentence enumerating every returned field and the enum values is dense but each clause carries selection-relevant information, so the length is mostly justified.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: id, action, schedule_kind with 'once'/'cron' semantics and timezone, enabled, next_run_at, and last-run outcome states (completed/skipped/deferred/failed). Combined with the usage routing and scope exclusions, an agent has everything needed to select and call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents cluster_id and cluster_name including the 'optional when a cluster is selected' semantics. The description only implies cluster scoping via 'a cluster's power schedules' and adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a cluster's power schedules') and pins down exactly what a power schedule is: a scheduled stop/start action attached to a self-managed cluster on named providers. It distinguishes itself from the create/update/delete siblings by naming them and by the returned fields.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('before create_power_schedule to avoid duplicates', 'to get the schedule_id for update_power_schedule / delete_power_schedule') and explicit when-not ('Not available for managed-Kubernetes or plain imported clusters'), plus the 20-schedule-per-cluster cap that constrains the create flow.

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