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

With annotations all reporting false, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds value by stating that it returns 'every deliverable' with detailed fields, includes late status and totals, and names the as_of date actually used. This is useful behavioral context beyond the tool name, though it does not discuss permissions or error 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence conveys the main purpose and content; the second adds a useful behavioral guarantee about naming the as_of. No filler or redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the return contents, including due dates, statuses, delivered/accepted dates, note, value, late items, and totals. It also covers the as_of semantics. It does not mention not-found behavior or ordering, but for this simple tool the core information is present.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the required 'schedule' parameter and optional 'as_of' parameter. The description reinforces that 'as_of' is a date and that the response will reflect that date, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Return one schedule in full as at a date') and enumerates the exact content delivered, distinguishing it from delivery_schedule_list or late_report. The scope is unambiguous: one schedule, not a list or a filtered subset.

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 makes evident when to use this tool: when a complete, date-specific view of one schedule is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over list or late-report tools.

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