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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about the returned data structure (cron status and version body) without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with relevant information. It states the purpose, the returned fields, the version selection logic, and a pointer to the sibling tool, all without 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (noted in context), the description doesn't need to enumerate return fields. It covers the key nuances of version selection and mentions the cron status fields, which is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema descriptions cover both parameters and explicitly note that one of them should be provided, achieving 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by saying 'by slug or id', confirming the relationship, though it doesn't add much beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'schedule'. It differentiates from get_schedule_version by explicitly directing users to that tool for older versions, which clarifies its scope.

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 mentions when to use an alternative: 'Use get_schedule_version to read a specific older version.' This provides clear guidance on tool selection. It also clarifies the default behavior (published if any, else latest) which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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