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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine domain context by describing the data the schedules encode and their endpoint, but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior beyond the schema's offset note, or authorization requirements.

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 short sentences plus an endpoint tag, with the core domain meaning front-loaded and no filler. The noun-phrase style is efficient though slightly telegraphic, which keeps it just short of ideal.

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 six-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers what schedules are, the two filter axes, and the endpoint. It omits any mention of pagination workflow or the shape of returned schedules, which the absence of an output schema makes more noticeable.

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% and every one of the six parameters carries its own schema description, including the enum meanings and the ids pairing. The description's filtering sentence loosely maps to consequence and scheduleable_id/type but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 states a specific resource (schedules) and goes further by enumerating what a schedule actually is - access windows, door auto-unlock/unlock timers, first-to-arrive, elevator permit timers - which is real domain meaning beyond the title 'List schedules'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like kisi_list_event_types or kisi_search_events, but the domain definition is strong enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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?

'Filter by consequence or by the group/lock it applies to' gives implied usage context for the two filtering axes, and the consequence enum values in the schema reinforce this. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many list_* and search_* siblings.

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