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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the five possible job states, the meaning of 'app unheard,' how rhythms are declared, and what fields each job carries. It also explicitly states the tool is read-only and never executes or schedules jobs, which matches and enriches 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?

The description is dense but every sentence adds value: it defines the job set, explains the states, describes rhythm declaration, lists the returned fields, and states the read-only boundary. It is front-loaded with the core resource and scope.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: each job's rhythm, allowed lateness, and last run, plus its state. The read-only behavior and the absence of arguments/data are also covered, making the tool fully understandable for an agent.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented by install_id and read_token descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline for high coverage.

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 states the tool reports every scheduled job for the runtime, enumerates the possible job states, and explains what each job carries. This makes the resource and scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools about changes, promises, and structure.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need scheduled-job status, rhythm, lateness, and last run. It also gives an exclusion boundary with 'Only names and timings, never arguments or data' and 'Boosthis never runs or schedules a job,' though it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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