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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the age-window semantics of two discovery params, but says nothing about permissions, duplicate-schedule behavior, whether the schedule executes immediately on creation, or side effects of auto_import/auto_outreach. For a 14-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the purpose before the parameter detail, which is the right ordering. However, the second half is an extremely dense run-on clause packed with ranges and defaults, while whole parameter groups that matter more for a successful call go unmentioned; the allocation of words is skewed rather than economical.

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?

A 14-parameter creation tool with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema needs far more than one sentence. The description gives solid detail on the discovery age-window logic but leaves the caller guessing about required fields' formats, scheduling semantics, and the return value, so an agent could easily construct an invalid or unintended schedule.

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 0% across 14 parameters, and the description only explains two of them (max_post_age_days with its 1-365 range and omit=no-limit default, post_age_relax_steps with its 0-4 range and default 3). Twelve parameters — including the required agent_id and channel, plus frequency, run_hour_utc, auto_import, auto_outreach, source_scan_id, and the nested params object's remaining keys — get no semantic help at all.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create an auto-scan schedule') and names the two operating modes (Import Only vs Message now outreach), which is genuine intent-level information. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from update_scan_schedule, trigger_scan_schedule, or list_scan_schedules, but the create verb makes the distinction largely self-evident.

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 two modes imply the situations the tool covers, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (does the agent need to exist first?), and no routing to update_scan_schedule for modifying an existing schedule or trigger_scan_schedule for running one now. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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