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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains the signing mechanism (sentinel u-tag, browser signs nothing), notes that an already-authorized scheduler is left alone, and specifies the return structure. It does not fully describe every edge case (e.g., failure modes of the reissue), but it is transparent about the core behavior and side effects.

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?

The description is fairly long but every sentence carries distinct information: the trigger condition, the action, the auth detail, the no-op case, and the return format. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses code formatting to highlight key tokens, which aids readability without being bloated.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (operator-only, auth sentinel, state-dependent), the description covers all essential aspects: when to use it, what it does, how auth works, what happens in an already-authorized case, what it returns, and the recommended follow-up. The output schema already documents return fields, so the description need not repeat them. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 50%: only npub is described in the schema, and the description adds context for npub (operator-only, gated). However, dpop_token is not mentioned anywhere in the description, leaving that parameter undocumented in both schema and description. Since the description partially compensates for the coverage gap but not completely, a 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Send... again') and a clear resource ('the scheduler's proof request'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scheduler_pending and scheduler_check_now by explaining the exact scenario it addresses. It also flags operator-only access, making its scope unmistakable.

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?

The description gives explicit conditions for use ('For a pending request that is not going to complete...') and explains the alternative behavior (Worker drops it and DMs a fresh one instead of waiting). It also prescribes the follow-up action ('Approve the NEWEST DM in Studio, then scheduler_check_now'), which is concrete, actionable guidance an agent can follow without inference.

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