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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds the traits that actually matter here: the call is asynchronous, returns immediately with a job_id, the computation runs 5-8 minutes, and completion must be polled via get_schedule_result. That is a substantial disclosure beyond what the annotations convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the immediate return value, then the polling instruction. No filler, and the 5-8 minute estimate is placed where the agent will read it before deciding to poll.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return semantics and does so well (job_id, polling loop). It is slightly incomplete on failure/edge behavior: nothing says what happens if the files are invalid or how to interpret a failed job, and idempotentHint=false suggests retry semantics the agent must infer.

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 100% and each of the 8 file properties plus the two optional statistics fields is already documented in the schema, including the 'never ask the user' caveat for user_country/user_language. The description only references 'the 8 input files' and adds no format or field-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (starts calculating the full timetable) plus the exact input source (the 8 input files) and the output shape (immediate job_id). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from validate_input ('validate them first') and get_schedule_result ('keep calling ... with the job_id'), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: validate the files first, call this to start the job, then repeatedly call get_schedule_result with the returned job_id. Both the precondition tool and the follow-up tool are named, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs among these siblings.

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