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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context the annotations don't carry: results are 'bounded page' with an 'exact total', and terminal (completed) actions are filtered out, which shapes what the agent should expect from results.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, and the core scope ('List pending, approved, or failed scheduled actions') is front-loaded before the return-shape and exclusion notes.

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 discloses the return contract (one bounded page plus exact total) and the completed-actions exclusion. Remaining gaps around ordering and what 'selected product' means in practice are minor for a simple read tool.

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 limit, offset, and campaign_id are already fully documented with defaults, ranges, and UUID format. The description only restates the optional campaign filter at a higher level and adds no pagination or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List ... scheduled actions in the selected product', with the qualifying status set (pending, approved, failed) and an optional campaign scope. It implicitly separates itself from the singular get_scheduled_action sibling, but never names it, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Scope is defined by the included statuses and the exclusion 'Completed actions are not included', which tells the agent when this tool will and won't return a given action. However, no alternative tool is named and no guidance explains when to prefer this listing over get_scheduled_action or the task/queue siblings.

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