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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying what the listing includes (cadence, pause state, next run, latest saved result summary) and explicitly clarifying that it does not scan or send email.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste. The core listing behavior and scope are front-loaded, followed by the useful negative clarification.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description usefully explains what fields the listing returns and what the tool does not do. It is nearly complete for this simple read-only tool, though it could note ordering or completeness of the listing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List readable scheduled reviews') with workspace scope and enumerates returned fields, making the purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from run/scan tools via 'Does not scan or send email,' though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_scheduled_review_result or run_scheduled_review.

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?

Usage is implied by the listing verb and the negative clause about not scanning or sending email, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_scheduled_review_result, run_scheduled_review, or the create/update/delete siblings.

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