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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context: missed periods remain due and are created by the next invoice_generate_due, and the operation is refused when it would exceed the free tier's active limit. This goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the behavioral consequence, and the refusal condition. Front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effect (missed periods due), and a failure condition. It doesn't describe the return value, but with no output schema that's less critical. It also doesn't explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., schedule must exist and be paused), but 'paused schedule' implies that.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. The description doesn't explain the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (a string). However, with only one parameter named 'id', the meaning is fairly obvious: it identifies the schedule to resume. The description could have added 'id of the schedule to resume' but the context is sufficient.

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 ('Resume'), a resource ('a schedule'), and the state transition ('Make a paused schedule active again'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like schedule_pause and schedule_create by focusing on the resume action.

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 implies when to use it: when a schedule is paused and should become active again. It also mentions a refusal condition (free tier's 3 active limit), which gives context for when it might not work. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and the verb 'resume' make the usage context clear.

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