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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description usefully adds the authoritative data source (sv-cal.canton.foundation), but says nothing about return format, ordering, or limits beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and content types, then usage cues. Slight redundancy between naming the feed and the 'Canton-specific' clause, but every sentence contributes and nothing is padded.

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 read-only filtered-list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns, the source, and when to call it. It omits only minor operational detail (ordering, default result size) that the schema already handles.

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% and each parameter (limit, environment, upcoming_only) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'Filter by environment' merely restates what the schema already conveys and adds no format or semantic detail.

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 (Show) and resource (Super Validator operations schedule) and enumerates the content types covered: releases, deploys, upgrades, governance windows, freezes. The named source feed and 'Canton-specific' qualifier make it clearly distinguishable from generic schedule siblings like get_upcoming_operations or get_upcoming_deadlines.

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 triggering contexts via example operator questions ('what is happening on MainNet next?', 'when is the next Splice cut?'). It is clear about when to use it, but offers no when-not guidance or named alternatives among the many sibling lookup tools.

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