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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: newest-first ordering, the active-scope inclusion rule, cursor pagination via next_before_id/has_more, the live re-check of archive membership per page, and the tickets:read auth requirement.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with little waste; ordering and scope come first. Slightly cryptic phrasing ('current archive membership is rechecked on each live page') costs a point but nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a read-only paginated list the description covers ordering, scope semantics, pagination, and auth. Return-field shape is unspecified, though an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains scope (active includes paused) and cursor semantics ('Follow next_before_id while has_more'), but references 'next_before_id' while the actual param is 'before_id', and never addresses `limit` or the archived/all scope values.

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 and resource ('List the caller's private report schedules') plus scope ('private', 'caller's') and ordering, which clearly separates it from get_portfolio_schedule (single) and list_portfolio_schedule_captures/revisions (different resources). An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the 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?

Provides useful usage-adjacent context ('Active includes paused schedules', 'Requires tickets:read') and the pagination loop condition, but never states when to choose this over the sibling list/get/revision tools or any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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