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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful disclosure about return contents (next_run_at, run counts, recent run status/attempts/errors), but says nothing about pagination limits, ordering, or what an empty schedule list looks like.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the default list mode and then the conditional single-rule mode. Semicolon-compressed but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields for both modes, which is exactly the gap it must fill. Missing only pagination/ordering behavior, which is minor for a read-only list of this size.

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%, so every parameter is already documented; baseline is 3. The description echoes the schedule_id conditional behavior and the runs semantics but adds no constraint (e.g., max 100) or default detail beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific resource (repeating wake-ups/schedules) and details what each record carries (next_run_at, run counts), plus a second mode when schedule_id is supplied. It doesn't explicitly name the nearest sibling (wakeup_list or reminder_list), and the title's use of 'wake-ups' muddies the boundary with schedule_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'with schedule_id, that one' clause implies when to narrow to a single rule, and the 'runs' parameter is scoped to that mode. But there is no guidance on when to pick this over wakeup_list, reminder_list, or schedule_run, and no exclusions are stated.

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