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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return fields (name, cadence, next run), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't disclose pagination or ordering, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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?

One short sentence with the key information front-loaded: what is listed, for whom, and what fields are returned. The 'Read-only' tag is a useful addition with no wasted words.

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 list tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the output is a list of schedules, but the verb 'List' already implies that. The read-only annotation covers the safety aspect.

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 schema fully documents the agent_id parameter. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden. The description's mention of 'the agent's' tasks aligns with the parameter's purpose.

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 ('List'), resource ('scheduled tasks'), and scope ('the agent's'). The parenthetical '(name, cadence, next run)' clarifies the return fields, and 'Read-only' reinforces the operation type. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_schedule and cancel_schedule.

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 implies the tool is for reading an agent's schedules, and the read-only hint plus sibling names (set_schedule, cancel_schedule) make the contrast clear. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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