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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral detail: default returns pending schedules, includeExecuted/includeCancelled alter filtering, and 'Requires project context' is a prerequisite not captured in annotations or schema.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by filter behavior, then usage guidance and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple list tool with full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the description covers purpose, defaults, flags, alternative, and prerequisite. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but these are not critical for a straightforward list operation, and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by clarifying the default filter ('Pending ones by default') and that the include flags broaden the result set. This helps the agent understand parameter behavior without opening the schema.

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 ('List the scheduled publishes of a version') and explicitly differentiates from get_publish_history by scope (pending vs executed). An agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('publishes that have not run yet') and names the alternative (get_publish_history) for already-run ones. Also notes the default behavior and the flags to broaden results, plus a prerequisite (project context).

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