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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only and non-destructive, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful context by listing the exact data fields returned and clarifying what the tool is not about, without contradicting the annotations.

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 short sentences each earn their place: the first states the resource and its key fields, the second prevents confusion with a closely named sibling. The most important information is front-loaded with 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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the field list and sibling distinction provide adequate operational context. It could go slightly further by explicitly stating that it returns scheduled task configurations/status, but the current wording is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, and the only parameter, profile_id, is already fully explained in the schema, including its optionality and relation to account_profiles. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 identifies the resource (scheduled tasks) and enumerates the returned attributes: type, cadence, enabled state, and last/next run times. It also distinguishes itself from automation_activity, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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?

It explicitly rules out the automation approval inbox and points to automation_activity as the alternative, which helps prevent a common mis-selection. However, it does not address other schedule-related siblings like automation_recent_tasks or automation_rules, so guidance is partial rather than fully comprehensive.

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