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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating what is returned (timezone, status, per-run/monthly credit caps) and clarifying it is passive, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the read/list action and returned fields are front-loaded and the non-activating caveat is appended succinctly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still summarizes the key returned fields. The one gap is that it never explains the required brandId scoping, which is the only input an agent must supply.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the sole required parameter brandId is never mentioned in the description. The description should clarify that results are scoped to a brand, but it leaves the parameter's meaning entirely to the field name.

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/list) and resource (saved daily or weekly research schedules) plus the notable fields returned. The closing 'Does not activate anything' implicitly separates it from the mutating sibling control_research_schedule, though it never names it.

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?

'Does not activate anything' gives a weak when-not signal and implies control_research_schedule is the alternative for activation. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_research_runs or get_research_run.

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