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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the call is database-only with no SEO provider invocation and no credit spend, and the 'if it has one' wording warns the schedule may not exist.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the cost profile. Every clause carries actionable information and nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned conceptually (a schedule, possibly absent), and annotations cover safety. It could say a little more about the return shape or absent-schedule behavior, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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% – both projectId and reportDefinitionId are fully documented with lookup hints (list_projects, list_report_definitions) in the schema. The description adds nothing param-specific, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieving the schedule attached to a report definition, with the scope qualifier 'if it has one'. This distinguishes it implicitly from get_report_definition (the definition itself) and upsert/delete_report_schedule (mutations), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It tells the agent the call is free and touches only the database, which helps decide whether to call it, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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