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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the response, including the three health states and that a failing health comes with a reason, which is real behavioral value. It omits error behavior for a missing cron, any permission requirements, and does not explicitly label the operation read-only beyond the word "Show".

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?

One front-loaded sentence, no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what a cron is and what the response reveals) comes first. Every clause carries content.

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?

Since there is no output schema, describing the returned fields is essential and the description does it well, including the health enum semantics. The remaining gap is the not-found/error path and confirmation that the call has no side effects.

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 100% and the single name parameter is documented in the schema with a pattern and an example ("daily-backup"). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the 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?

"Show a cron" gives a specific verb and resource, and the enumeration of returned fields (schedule, next run, health, last run task, last success) makes clear this is a single-record detail lookup. It is distinguishable from the plural list_crons by the singular framing, though it never names that sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for inspecting one known cron, while list_crons handles enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on what happens if the name is unknown, and no named alternative.

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