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

The description describes a read-only listing operation, but the annotations set readOnlyHint=false, directly contradicting the description. Additionally, the description does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, error handling, or the meaning of the trailing 'Free.' fragment.

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 main sentence is information-dense and front-loads the core listing behavior, but the final 'Free.' is ambiguous and unhelpful, detracting from clarity. The description could be better structured to separate the ordering/fields from the filters.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, ordering, and output fields, but it omits details about pagination/limit semantics and does not compensate for the missing output schema. The read-only annotation contradiction further undermines trust and completeness.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds context about sort order and the date-based counts, which aligns with as_of and state, but it does not substantially enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'schedules', and adds specificity with ordering ('oldest reference first'), returned fields (client, currency, counts), and filters (client, reference, state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delivery_schedule_get, which implies single-item retrieval.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delivery_schedule_get or deliverable_status. The mention of filters and state values implies common use cases, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.

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