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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context per action (generate = on-demand, create_schedule = recurring, apply_program_template = creates a cohort), though it omits permissions, side effects on existing schedules, and return behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured action-by-action with the redirect last; every clause earns its place. Slightly dense as a single enumerated sentence, but 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 14-parameter multi-action mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical routing information (action semantics and required inputs per action). The unresolved gaps are the fourth action's required inputs and the meaning of the optional scheduling fields.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 14 parameters, the description carries the burden and mostly succeeds: it enumerates which parameters each of generate, create_schedule, and update_schedule requires. It falls short on apply_program_template, whose expected inputs (templateId, cohortName) and the optional parameters (enabled, startDate, endDate) are never explained.

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 pair (create/modify) and resources (reports and schedules), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_report_schedule. An agent can tell it apart from reports_query and delete_report_schedule without opening any schema.

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?

Each action value is paired with the condition that requires it, and the one true alternative (delete_report_schedule) is named with an explicit redirect. Nothing about when to pick this tool vs its siblings is left to inference.

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