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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that pagination and active-status filtering are supported, but says nothing about default page size, sort order, or how results behave when active is omitted.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than maximally information-dense, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essential contract: scope, pagination, and an active filter. It falls short on brand_id/workspace_id and the query override parameter, which are the main gaps given 0 required params and a nested object.

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 only 29% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It hints at pagination (limit/cursor/offset) and the active boolean, but leaves brand_id, the nested query override object, and the workspace_id semantics largely undocumented beyond the one schema-level workspace_id note.

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 (List) plus resource (report schedules) and scope (in the workspace), which cleanly separates it from get_report_schedule, create/update/delete_report_schedule. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling alternative or the conditions that select this tool over them.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List all report schedules' and the mentioned filters, which is enough for an agent to infer this is the enumeration entry point. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_report_schedule for a single record, nor any stated prerequisites.

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