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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by specifying pagination order (newest-first), scoping to the caller's own tasks, and listing the exact filter statuses. It aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and provides concrete behavioral details.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence captures the core purpose and scope, the second adds filtering details—perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 the simple nature of the tool (list with filtering and pagination), the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, scope, ordering, filtering, and tier information. Combined with the comprehensive annotations and output schema, it is fully sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 description explicitly lists the status enum values pending/completed/cancelled/cancelled_owner_inactive/all, which adds clarity beyond the schema description that only mentions 'lifecycle state'. For limit and cursor, the description implies pagination but does not detail cursor usage. Overall, it enriches 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 clearly states the verb ('list'), the resource ('scheduled tasks'), and adds important scope ('the caller's own') and ordering ('newest-first'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like schedule_task and cancel_scheduled_task by focusing on listing existing tasks.

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 explains the tool provides transparency into queued future tasks, implying it should be used when an agent needs to review its own pending/completed tasks. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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