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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that every invocation enqueues a separate run and incurs billing 'like any run,' reinforcing the non-idempotent hint with concrete consequence. It also explains that the run inherits the schedule's input and cost cap and returns a queued run to be followed with wait_for_run.

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 tight sentences; the action and its out-of-timetable scope come first, followed by return value, follow-up tool, and cost/duplication warning. No filler.

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 still covers the return value (a queued run), the natural next step (wait_for_run), and the cost side effect. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by clarifying that no inputs are passed here — the run reuses the schedule's stored input and cost cap, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource — 'Start the schedule's workflow now, outside its timetable' — which tells an agent this is an immediate trigger rather than a scheduled or previewed action. It does not explicitly name the nearby alternatives (preview_schedule, create_run), so differentiation from siblings is left partly to inference.

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?

Gives clear context for use ('outside its timetable') and a follow-up instruction to call wait_for_run, plus a warning that 'each call starts another run.' It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., to preview without executing), so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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