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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: results are returned in date order, the default window is today through 14 days ahead, and the call requires a Cotlet API key with access to the app.

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?

Three compact sentences that front-load what the tool returns before moving to scoping, defaults and auth. Slightly repetitive with the schema's own default-window text, but there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: date ordering, per-item assignees and predecessors, and the default date window. Auth prerequisites are stated. An agent has everything it needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (from, to, job_id) is already documented in the schema, including the same default-window values. The description restates the job_id empty behavior and the default window without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (get schedule) and enumerates exactly what the returned items contain (start/end dates, assignees, predecessors, status), so an agent knows this is a read of schedule data rather than the adjacent buildertrend_update_schedule_item. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 through the two scoping modes (one job via job_id, or all open jobs when job_id is empty) and the default window, which tells the agent it can call this with no arguments. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives routing, e.g. pointing at buildertrend_list_tasks or update_schedule_item.

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