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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (schedule, status, next_run_at) and the scope (agent or whole account), which helps the agent understand what data to expect. It does not mention pagination or edge cases, but given annotations, the extra context is sufficient.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and scope. It includes the key returned fields without extraneous detail. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope, and some return fields. It does not explicitly state the default limit (50) or that results are paginated, but those are in the schema. The mention of 'schedule, status and next_run_at' gives a good sense of the output. It is adequate for an agent to call it effectively.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond mentioning the scope (agent_id is implied via 'one agent'), but does not describe the limit or status filters beyond what schema already states. Since the schema carries the full parameter documentation, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('scheduled tasks') with an explicit scope ('for one agent or the whole account'). It also indicates the fields returned (schedule, status, next_run_at). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like schedule_agent_task (which creates tasks) and list_agents (which lists agents).

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 description implicitly conveys when to use the tool—when you need to view scheduled tasks—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It does not mention that it is read-only or that it is for querying rather than modifying. Since annotations already cover safety, the lack of explicit routing to siblings is a minor gap. The grounds are implied but not stated.

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