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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses the returned cron status fields and the version-selection rule ('published if any, else latest'). Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so remaining gaps such as permission requirements or not-found behavior are minor.

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?

Two sentences are used with zero waste: the core behavior and returns are front-loaded, followed by the sibling alternative. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety traits, the description supplies the remaining decision-relevant context: what is returned, how the current version is selected, and where to go for older versions. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, and the description reinforces that either slug or id may identify the schedule. It does not add syntax, format, or precedence details beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get a single schedule'), explains the lookup keys (slug or id), and enumerates the returned data (cron status and current version definition body). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_schedule_version by naming that sibling for older versions.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to get_schedule_version when a specific older version is needed, which is a clear alternative-selection rule. It does not state when not to use this tool or mention list_schedules as a discovery path, but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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