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 free. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the returned content (status code, duration, error, response preview), which matters because no output schema exists.

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 what is fetched, followed by the fields returned and the purpose. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 only two simple parameters and no nested structures, this is close to complete, and the description compensates for the missing output schema by listing the returned fields. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether a response preview is truncated or how large previews can get.

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 both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the default of 10 for runs and where the id comes from. The description's "recent runs" phrasing is consistent but adds no syntax or limits beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

"Get one scheduled request with its recent runs" gives a specific verb and resource, and the field list (status code, duration, error, response preview) pins down exactly what comes back. The singular "one" implicitly contrasts with list_schedules, though no sibling is named.

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?

"Use this to check whether a request worked" gives a genuine use case, but there is no guidance on when to prefer list_schedules, when to use run_now, or any prerequisite such as needing an id from schedule_request or list_schedules. Usage is implied rather than delimited.

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