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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation safe, and the description adds valuable behavioral traits: the full set of statuses returned and the newest-first order. This prevents the agent from assuming only pending schedules are shown, exceeding what the structured annotation alone conveys.

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 entire description is a single, efficient sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the scope, status list, and ordering without filler or redundancy.

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 simple paginated list tool with only two fully documented parameters, the description covers scope, status coverage, and sort order. It does not describe the return item fields, but no output schema is defined and the core behavior an agent needs to invoke correctly is fully stated.

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% for both 'page' and 'size', so the structured schema carries the full parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('scheduled deployments'), then narrows scope with 'across all groups' and an explicit status enum (PENDING, EXECUTED, CANCELED, FAILED) plus an ordering rule (newest first). This fully distinguishes it from siblings like lexq_deploy_schedule (create) or lexq_deploy_history (deployment history).

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 clearly establishes its purpose as listing all scheduled deployments, with no exclusions for group or status, and states the ordering. It does not reference alternative tools for specific cases (e.g., deploy_history), but the context is clear enough that an agent knows when this list is needed.

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