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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely new information by tagging the call as 'Free' (cost profile) and by disclosing that last run comes with its runId, implying a follow-up lookup is possible. Minor deduction for not stating ordering, limits, or whether all schedules are always returned.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by the field inventory and the cost note – every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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 no-argument list tool with an output schema present, the description is essentially complete; the field enumeration is redundant with the output schema but harmless. It stops short of explaining ordering, pagination, or that 'spent this month' reflects billing, which would fully close the loop.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on arguments and instead describes the shape of the returned records.

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 ('Lists the user's schedules') and then enumerates exactly what each entry contains (source, input, frequency, next/last run, spend, on/off). No sibling overlaps with listing schedules – schedule_create/delete are mutations – so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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: an agent wanting to see what is scheduled will land here, and with no parameters there is little to confuse. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing and no pointer to procli_runs_get for drilling into the runId that the description itself mentions.

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