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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does disclose the shape (next_run_at, run counts; per-run status, attempts, errors). It omits pagination/limits details, which the schema covers via the runs cap.

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 telegraphic sentence with the default mode front-loaded and the schedule_id variant following. No filler, though the semicolon clause is dense and slightly cryptic.

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 simple read-only tool with 4 params, one required, full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and the two invocation modes. Minor gaps (pagination behavior) are not fatal given the schema handles the runs cap.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the schedule_id conditional already documented in the schema and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond it.

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 names the resource (repeating wake-ups/schedules) and the returned fields (next_run_at, run counts), so an agent can infer this is a list operation. However, no explicit verb is used and it does not distinguish itself from adjacent tools like wakeup_list, reminder_list, or schedule_run.

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 clause 'with schedule_id, that one with its recent runs' gives conditional usage guidance for the parameter branch, implying list-all vs single-detail modes. It offers no when-to-use context relative to sibling tools and no exclusions.

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