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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it answers NOT_FOUND when no schedule exists, and that the memberId path is limited to team admins — neither is in the structured fields.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource, scope, and error contract; zero filler. The parenthetical is terse but earns its place by carrying the permission nuance.

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 single-optional-param read with full annotation coverage, the description covers scope, permission, and the not-found case. The return shape of the schedule object is left unstated and there is no output schema, though that is a minor gap for a simple getter.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and memberId already documents the source (list_members), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a permission constraint — the memberId form is for team admins — which is semantics the schema does not convey, justifying a nudge above baseline.

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?

Specific verb and resource: fetch the default schedule, scoped to self or a teammate. Clear about what is returned, but never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_default_schedule, get_schedule, or list_schedules, which the agent must infer between.

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 rather than stated: fetch when you need a default schedule for self or a teammate. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternatives, and the crowded sibling set (get_default_schedule, get_schedule, get_schedule_by_event_slug) makes the missing routing guidance a real gap.

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