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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but add nothing about cost or side effects. The description adds substantive context beyond them: the job is recurring and lands in the user's Lection account, it may consume cloud credits, and plan limits can block creation with a clear message. It stops short of stating reversibility/cleanup (pause vs delete) or failure behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action and its cadence/destination scope, followed by the confirmation requirement and the limits caveat. Every sentence carries information; only the destination enumeration slightly duplicates the enum in the schema.

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 9-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral layer (cost, confirmation, plan limits). It does not cover what the schedule id/result looks like or how to later modify it, but that is largely outside this tool's scope.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters including defaults, enums and formats. The description only restates the cadence and destination option sets, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 ('Create a recurring schedule ... that re-runs one of the user's saved scrapes') and enumerates the cadence and delivery options. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_my_schedules and pause_schedule, which read or modify existing schedules rather than create them.

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 a concrete pre-call instruction ('confirm the saved scrape, cadence and destination with the user') which is real usage guidance for a mutation. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. pause_schedule for stopping, list_my_saved_scrapes for obtaining the id — though that is referenced in the schema), so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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