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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description's remaining job is scoping — and it delivers by stating results are tenant-scoped and summary-level only (no definition body). It stops short of saying how pages or ordering behave, but the safety/mutation profile is fully 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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: scope first, definition second, return-shape plus alternative last. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 values need no explanation, and the description still flags the summary-vs-body distinction that matters for an agent's next step. Authentication framing (authenticated tenant) and the escape hatch to detail tools are both present.

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 page_size, page_token, and slug_prefix are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about prefix matching or paging beyond that, which is acceptable but leaves it at the baseline.

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 (List) and resource (schedules) plus the tenant scope, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_schedule / get_schedule_version by noting it returns summaries without definition bodies. The 'cron for workflows' gloss removes ambiguity about what a schedule is for an agent that has never seen this domain.

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?

Clearly routes the agent: use this for a listing, then call get_schedule or get_schedule_version to obtain a definition body. It does not, however, mention the neighbouring list_schedule_runs or list_schedule_versions siblings, so the agent must infer that runs and versions live elsewhere.

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