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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Limitations: read-only' merely restates structured data rather than adding context. Nothing is said about auth requirements (api_token/app_password), the multi-workspace account_id requirement, or error behavior for a missing schedule_id.

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 verb and resource, with the endpoint placed immediately after. It is tight and wastes little space, though the 'Limitations: read-only' clause is filler given the annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate but thin. It omits the auth/workspace-scoping context that the six-parameter schema implies, which would help an agent call it 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 83%, so the schema already documents base_url, api_token, account_id, access_token, and app_password. The description adds nothing about schedule_id's format or the conditional requirement of account_id; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Gets') and resource ('one schedule') and gives the underlying endpoint GET /schedules/:schedule_id, so an agent can tell it retrieves a single schedule. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like list_schedules or get_user_schedule, which keeps it from 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions or prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'Gets one schedule' implies a single-record lookup, but the agent must infer that versus list_schedules on its own.

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