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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's real contribution is the warning that message text is untrusted customer content (a genuine prompt-injection/safety signal) and the pagination disclosure ('Returns one page unless stated otherwise'). It also maps to the underlying GET endpoint. It stops short of describing page-size caps or what fields come back.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with purpose and scope front-loaded before the safety and pagination notes. The endpoint path is compact and earns its place as an API-mapping aid.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, safety and pagination adequately. However, with six undocumented filter parameters and a hard page_size maximum of 100, an agent lacks guidance on how to narrow results or iterate pages.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. Only indirect hints exist ('recurrence settings' gestures at recurring_only, 'one page' at page/page_size), while schedule_date_after, schedule_date_before and dashboard_id semantics and formats are explained nowhere.

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 ('Read scheduled 1:1 messages and recurrence settings') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('Does not create, cancel or reschedule'). It implicitly separates itself from the singular textrequest_get_scheduled_message by describing a paged list, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Does not create, cancel or reschedule messages' gives clear negative guidance about the mutation alternatives an agent might otherwise reach for. It does not explicitly route to textrequest_get_scheduled_message for single-item lookups, so the when-to-use-which guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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