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 context beyond that by clarifying the return content (summaries, no body) and pointing to sibling tools for full details. It doesn't mention pagination behavior, but that's covered in the schema. Overall, it adds useful behavioral context on top of 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 with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action and scope; the second explains the domain concept and directs the agent to alternatives. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 that there is an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers purpose, scope, the concept of a schedule, and the alternative for full bodies. Pagination and filtering are documented in the schema. It's complete for a list operation, though it could explicitly mention that results are paginated, but that's minor.

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 all parameters (page_size, page_token, slug_prefix) are already documented. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters fully and the description adds nothing extra.

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 verb and resource: 'List the schedules belonging to the authenticated tenant.' It defines a schedule as 'cron for workflows' and distinguishes itself from get_schedule/get_schedule_version by noting it returns summaries rather than the full body. This makes it unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it returns summaries, and if you need the full body, use get_schedule or get_schedule_version. It also scopes the operation to the authenticated tenant. It doesn't mention exclusions (e.g., 'use list_schedule_versions for version listings'), but the primary alternative is named.

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