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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds non-obvious traits: identifiers are not stable and can be recycled by newly created jobs, tasks may be present but disabled, and failures are reported explicitly rather than as an empty list. This is genuinely supplemental context 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by distinct operational warnings with no filler. Every sentence contributes a separate, actionable fact (ID instability, disabled state, failure semantics).

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden — and it does: rows begin with the identifier, disabled status appears inline, and unavailable lists are self-declaring. Combined with the mutation-safety warning tied to delete_cronjob, the agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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% with a single well-documented `domain` parameter, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds meaning about the output shape (row-leading Kennung = cronjob_id) but nothing about the input parameter format itself, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource ("Zeigt die geplanten Aufgaben (Cronjobs) einer Domain") and anchors it to the Plesk concept "Geplante Aufgaben". It also distinguishes itself from create_cronjob/delete_cronjob by naming delete_cronjob's expected cronjob_id, making the read-vs-write boundary explicit.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use rules: re-fetch immediately before deleting, never reuse an ID from an earlier response, and forward disabled-task state verbatim. It also handles the negative case (list unavailable → do not claim there are no cronjobs).

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