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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds that results include next run times, which is useful output context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, auth requirements, or result ordering beyond what the schema provides.

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. The purpose and return-value hint are front-loaded, and the API endpoint reference is compact trailing context. No waste.

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 a fully documented 2-parameter schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what and what-comes-back. Only pagination semantics (defaults, whether next-page info is returned with no output schema) are left unstated.

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% with both page and pageSize fully documented (including ranges). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (cron schedules for tasks), and adds the meaningful detail that next run times are included. An agent can distinguish this from trigger_get_schedule (singular) and trigger_list_queues/runs without opening the schema.

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 implies this is the discovery/browse operation for schedules, but never states when to use it versus trigger_get_schedule or the activate/deactivate siblings. Usage context is implied by the verb but not made explicit.

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