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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The only behavioral addition is the workspace scoping constraint; there is no note on permissions, error behavior when the ID is unknown, or whether cross-workspace IDs are rejected.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The identifying verb and resource come first, followed by the scoping qualifier, and nothing is wasted.

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 four parameters (including a nested, free-form 'query' object) at only 50% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description leaves real gaps: it never explains the query overrides, brand_id, or what the returned schedule contains. For a tool of this parameter complexity it should do more.

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 50% (id and brand_id are undocumented, query and workspace_id are documented). The description partially compensates by clarifying that lookup is by ID and that the scope is the workspace, but it says nothing about brand_id or the query-override object, leaving half the surface to inference.

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 ('Retrieve a single report schedule by ID'), which cleanly separates it from aidelly_list_report_schedules and the create/update/delete variants of the same resource. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never points to aidelly_list_report_schedules for enumeration or aidelly_update_report_schedule for modification. The parenthetical '(workspace-scoped)' implies a context but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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