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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements this by disclosing what the response contains: full rotation detail and linked escalation policies. It adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotation.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the core operation ('One schedule by UUID') before describing response contents. No filler or redundancy.

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 getter with one fully documented parameter, the description provides sufficient behavioral context (what is returned) without an output schema. Nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

The schema fully documents the single required uuid parameter, including the expected 'sch_...' format. The description only restates that lookup is by UUID and adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies because coverage is 100%.

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 retrieves a single schedule by UUID and specifies the included content (full rotation detail, linked escalation policies). This distinguishes it from list_on_call_schedules and other get_* siblings without requiring schema inspection.

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 phrase 'One schedule by UUID' makes the use case apparent: call when you have a specific schedule UUID and need its full details. It does not explicitly name list_on_call_schedules as the alternative for listing all, but the context is clear enough.

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