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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine context: 'An id outside the caller's accessible projects returns not found' discloses access-scoping behavior not present in the annotations or schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the field enumeration, followed by the one relevant caveat and the sibling pointer. No wasted text.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing the returned fields (project, name, prompt, triggers, labels, template key, skip setting, enabled, run times). Access behavior and the alternative tool are also covered.

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% and the single parameter is already documented (including its source 'from list_scheduled_tasks'). The description adds no additional syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch one scheduled task by id') plus the resource, then enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to list_scheduled_task_runs for run-level data.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_scheduled_task_runs when the goal is run output, which is clear alternative guidance. It does not explicitly contrast against list_scheduled_tasks or state full when-not conditions, keeping it short of a 5.

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