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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add contextual behavior. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: it lists only waiting prints, sorts soonest first, excludes released/starting prints, and states exactly which fields are returned. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile without contradicting it.

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 tight and front-loaded: core purpose first, then concrete use cases, then return fields, then an explicit exclusion. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or annotations.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides the key missing output fields, ordering, scope, and exclusion. The main gap is that pagination parameters are required but their effect on 'every print' is not clarified, and the optional printer_ids filter is not described. Still, the overall invocation context is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain page, page_size, or printer_ids at all, nor does it mention pagination behavior or why printer_ids would be used. The phrase 'across the account' hints at the default scope, but the required page/page_size semantics are left entirely to the agent.

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 a clear resource ('scheduled prints') with scope ('every print across the account') and ordering ('soonest first'). It explicitly differentiates itself from get_farm_overview, which covers released and starting prints, so an agent can disambiguate the tool immediately.

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 concrete use cases ('what is scheduled tonight', 'do I have anything queued up for tomorrow', before rescheduling/cancelling) and tells the agent when NOT to use it: 'Prints already released and starting are NOT listed here - use get_farm_overview for those.' This provides explicit when/when-not guidance and names the alternative.

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