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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return composition (pending + triggered within 14 days), the freshness window ('last 14 days, waiting for analysis'), and even prescribes agent behavior (LEAD with fired wakeups, run comparison against saved benchmarks). It doesn't state auth requirements or rate limits, which are the remaining gaps.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded, but roughly half the text is a prescriptive script ('LEAD with them: "I have a scheduled check..."') that is verbose and arguably belongs in agent behavior guidance rather than a tool definition, diluting the core purpose statement.

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?

Complete for a read-only list tool: purpose, timing trigger, return composition, status semantics, and pagination are all covered. No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return shape in prose, which compensates. Only minor missing context (who can call it, rate limits) keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the enum default and pagination semantics. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or edge cases beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (scheduled wakeups) with clear scope ('for a store'). Distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_wakeup and from broader list tools like get_timeline by being explicitly about scheduled wakeups.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger: 'Call at the start of sessions where the merchant might have pending wakeups due — especially if today's date is at or past a previously scheduled triggerDate.' No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g., get_wakeup vs get_wakeups) is stated, but the timing guidance is actionable.

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