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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is content disclosure — and it delivers by saying the guide contains per-type syntax, examples, and optional settings. It doesn't state length or format of the returned text, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences, zero waste: the first declares content and the parenthetical enumerates supported schedule types; the second front-loads the call trigger at the end where it is most visible. The type list is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent whether its schedule type is covered.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the only thing an agent needs is what the guide contains and when to read it — both stated. Nothing material is missing for a zero-argument documentation tool.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly implies the entire guide is returned without any filtering argument.

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?

Names the resource precisely (the schedule format guide) and enumerates exactly what it covers — text syntax for staff rota, day timeline, rotation, event agenda, poster, lineup, personal week, month, year. The enumeration makes it unmistakable next to make_schedule or list_templates without needing to name them.

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?

"Read it before writing a schedule" gives an explicit, actionable trigger for when to call this tool. It stops short of naming a specific alternative or stating a when-not condition, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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