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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explaining the output (earliest and latest version numbers) and the purpose, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. It contains no fluff and every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with an output schema and comprehensive safety annotations, the description provides the purpose and usage context. It could clarify that exactly one of slug or schedule_id should be provided (since both are optional in the schema), but this is implied by 'by slug or id'. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so both slug and schedule_id are already documented with clear descriptions. The description mentions 'by slug or id' which aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action (get earliest and latest version numbers), the resource (schedule versions), and the input method (by slug or id). It differentiates from get_schedule_version by explicitly explaining the purpose is to know the range for fetching. This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling differentiation.

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 provides explicit context: use this to know the range you can fetch with get_schedule_version. It implies the scenario and ties to a sibling tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond get_schedule_version. The input method (slug or id) is also specified.

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