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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns the next three runs, the last ten runs, and rent, and notes that the call_id values can be passed to account_get_call for results. It also states the operation is free, which is useful cost context.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence plus a short cost note, with the most important information front-loaded. Every element adds value: what is returned, how many runs, how to resolve call results, and cost. There is 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?

For a read-only single-record fetch with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the return contains and how to use nested call references. It also mentions cost, which is helpful context. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage and already explains that schedule_id is the identifier returned by schedules_create. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter. With full schema coverage and a single parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states it returns one schedule in full, with specific contents: next three runs, last ten runs, and rent. This distinguishes it from the list-style sibling schedules_list, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool for retrieving a single schedule when you already have its schedule_id. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus schedules_list or when not to use it. The reference to account_get_call helps clarify how to obtain run results but is not full usage guidance.

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