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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by stating the response contains summaries only, not definition bodies, and by scoping results to the authenticated tenant. That goes beyond the structured annotations and shapes agent expectations about output.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the domain analogy is brief, and the return-behavior/alternative guidance is placed at the end 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no required parameters and a full output schema, the description covers the essential context: scope, return granularity, and where to go for full details. Pagination and filtering are already documented in the schema. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

All three parameters (page_size, page_token, slug_prefix) already have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline applies. The tool description does not restate or enrich these parameter meanings, but it doesn't need to at 100% coverage. No parameter-level detail is missing.

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: 'List the schedules belonging to the authenticated tenant.' It distinguishes itself from sibling get_schedule tools by noting it returns summaries and directing the agent to get_schedule/get_schedule_version for full bodies. The 'cron for workflows' analogy adds domain context without ambiguity.

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 gives an explicit conditional alternative: if a definition body is needed, fetch it with get_schedule or get_schedule_version. It clarifies scope ('belonging to the authenticated tenant'), which helps an agent decide it's the right listing tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_schedule_runs, but the resource word ('schedules' vs runs) and return-summaries note provide adequate context.

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