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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful detail about returning the exact definition body as a JSON string plus checksum, but does not cover error or auth behavior; the annotation burden is reduced.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. It conveys the core behavior, use case, and version semantics in two efficient sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields are already specified. The description supplements this with checksum and JSON-string details, and the version omission behavior is clearly stated. No important context 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?

Schema descriptions already cover slug, schedule_id, and version semantics, so the added parameter meaning is minimal. The description reinforces that version 0 means latest but does not substantially go 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?

Clearly states it reads back the full stored definition of a schedule version, distinguishing it from listing versions or fetching schedule metadata. The verb 'read back' and object 'schedule version' are precise and specific.

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?

Explicitly identifies the intended use case (diff, patch, resubmit as a new version) and explains the behavior when version is omitted. This helps the agent choose this tool over list_schedule_versions or get_schedule.

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