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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with those. It adds behavioral value by defining what 'in full' means, listing the concrete fields returned, and noting the relationship to schedule_history. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are not necessary for a read-only lookup.

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 a single tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action and follows with a concise field list. The second sentence about schedule_history is a useful pointer rather than filler. There is no repetition of the tool name, title, or schema 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?

For a simple one-parameter getter, the description is complete: it states the purpose, the accepted identifier form, the full return contents, and the correct alternative for history data. The annotations cover safety, and the output-schema absence is compensated by the explicit field enumeration. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

The schema already describes the only parameter, id, as 'Schedule id, or a client name' with 100% coverage, so the description's 'by id or client' adds no new semantic information. There are no enums or nested objects to clarify. The schema carries the parameter-documentation burden, so the baseline of 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 opens with 'Return one schedule in full by id or client', a specific verb-plus-resource statement that clearly differentiates this tool from list or log siblings. The enumerated payload fields (items, cadence, dates, due days, anchor rules, notes, per-period amount, next due date, invoice count) make its purpose unmistakable. The final clause about schedule_history also helps distinguish it from the history log.

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 clear context: use this when you need one full schedule by id or client, not a list or a log. It explicitly points to schedule_history for the log, but it does not spell out when to prefer schedule_list or schedule_upcoming. The by-id/full-record framing implies those boundaries well enough for a simple getter.

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