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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: an owner-only access restriction and the notable branch where the platform owner also sees host cron jobs and Kestra flows read-only.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the returned shape, then filters, then the owner caveat. The progress is efficient, though the parenthetical Ukrainian example ('щомісячний інвойс клієнту зі США') is decorative and consumes space without adding selection signal.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers the access constraint and the owner-only extra sources. Gaps remain around pagination and result limits, but for a filterable read-only list this is close to sufficient.

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 only 40%, so the description carries part of the burden. It names three filters (action_type, section, state) that appear only as bare schema properties, which helps, but adds no value formats or enum meaning, and it never mentions subject_id or include_other, which the schema does describe.

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+resource ('This cabinet's automations') and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, action type, section, state, schedule, next run, last run result), so the agent knows exactly what this list yields. It does not name a sibling (automation_get, automation_runs) to contrast with, so differentiation is only implicit from the word 'list'.

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 usage conditions: 'Owner only', the available filters (action_type, section, state), and the platform-owner extension via other automations. It stops short of saying when to prefer automation_get or automation_runs over this tool, so the when-not guidance is missing.

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