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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond them: it returns only the earliest and latest version numbers, not the full version list the name 'list_schedule_versions' might imply. Error behavior for a missing slug/id is not covered.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the return value and closes with the follow-up tool. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

Low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema that documents the return shape, and annotations covering safety. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already document the 'provide this or schedule_id' either/or constraint, so the description's '(by slug or id)' is essentially a restatement. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — getting the earliest and latest version numbers of a schedule — and pins the input modes (slug or id). It is clearly distinguishable from get_schedule_version (fetches a single version) and list_schedules (lists schedules, not 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?

Explicitly frames the use case: 'to know the range you can fetch with get_schedule_version', which routes the agent into the correct follow-up call. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion against get_schedule, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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