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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety burden is off the description. The description adds genuinely useful context: it clarifies that this only reads saved schedules and does not activate them, preempting a common agent error. It doesn't mention pagination or filtering, but with annotations covering safety this is solid.

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 packed sentence leads with the read action, enumerates the relevant fields, and ends with the crucial non-activation caveat. No waste.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and the key behavioral caveat. It omits return-value explanation, which is fine given the output schema exists.

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?

Only one parameter (brandId) and schema description coverage is 0%, but the parameter name and regex pattern make its meaning evident. The description adds nothing about brandId syntax or what brand scoping means, so baseline 3 is appropriate for a single trivial parameter.

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 (Read) and resource (saved daily/weekly research schedules), and enumerates the returned fields (timezone, status, credit caps). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_research_runs and save_research_schedule.

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 clause 'Does not activate anything' implicitly contrasts with activate_* siblings, and the read-only framing implies inspection use. However, it never explicitly names when to prefer this over list_research_runs or get_research_run, leaving usage to inference.

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