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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that this is an execution/trigger action rather than a query, but says nothing about side effects, whether the scan runs asynchronously, resource consumption, permissions, or whether the schedule's own state is modified.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the immediacy clause are stated first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified for a mutating trigger tool — an agent cannot tell what the scan produces, what state changes occur, or how the two IDs relate.

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% and there are two required parameters (agent_id, schedule_id). The description does not mention either parameter or explain their relationship, relying entirely on the self-evident naming, which is insufficient compensation for a total coverage gap.

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 (run/trigger a scan schedule) and adds the 'Run now' cue to indicate immediate rather than scheduled execution. It distinguishes reasonably well from create_scan_schedule and update_scan_schedule, though it doesn't clearly separate itself from sibling run_scan or continue_scan.

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 parenthetical '(Run now)' implies use when you want the schedule to fire immediately instead of at its scheduled time, but no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., run_scan vs this) are provided.

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