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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return value and a free-tier limit, but it does not explain side effects of 'opening', whether opening is reversible, what happens when the free tier is exhausted, or any validation requirements beyond what the schema states. For a mutating tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 sentences with no filler; the action, target, return value, and key constraint are all present. The 'Free tier: 3 open' phrasing is slightly cryptic but compact and informative enough for an agent to infer a limit.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description provides the return shape and a limit, but it omits behavioral context like what 'open' entails, error conditions, and how to distinguish this from delivery_schedule_document or deliverable_add. High schema coverage mitigates the parameter side, but the missing operational context leaves it at minimum viable.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists 'the reference, its own date, the client, a title and the currency', but these are return fields rather than parameter explanations, and most parameter details are already in the schema. It adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('Open'), a resource ('delivery schedule'), and the acceptable parent documents ('quote, work order or change order'), plus the concrete DS-YYYY-NNNN return value. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delivery_schedule_get, delivery_schedule_list, and delivery_schedule_delete.

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 intended use is implied by the description: call this when you need to open a schedule against a reference document. However, it never names alternatives or says when not to use it, and the sibling tools are not referenced. The 'Free tier: 3 open' line is a usage constraint but not guidance about choosing this tool over others.

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