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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds real context beyond them: the ~1 minute latency, the body flag and x-agentmart-schedule-test header it injects, and the state boundary that the run is never counted as fired or missed. It does not contradict 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first ('Send one test run ... now') followed by timing and payload detail. Dense but every clause earns its place; only the parenthetical timing is slightly awkward.

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 and only three fully documented parameters, the description covers what matters: immediate timing, the test marker, and the non-counting side-effect rule. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the sibling distinction is missing.

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%: instance_id, schedule_id, and passport_token are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource: it fires a single test run of a repeating wake-up immediately. It is clear enough for an agent to know what happens, but it never names or distinguishes itself from plausible siblings such as heartbeat_test, wakeup_schedule, or schedule_create, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'exactly like a real run' and 'never counted as fired or missed' tell the agent this is the safe pre-flight test, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g. real run vs heartbeat_test) is named.

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