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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: schedules live at the account level, connect to quizzes separately, and are shared across multiple quizzes, plus that IDs originate only here. Return value shape is not described, keeping it out of the top band.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by scope and ID-sourcing notes. Each sentence contributes distinct information with no filler, though the structure is a dense block rather than strictly prioritized.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned schedule attributes and the account-level relationship that governs how schedules are reused. Pagination or result-volume behavior is not addressed, leaving a small gap for a list-style getter.

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% for the single workspace_id parameter (documented as 'ID воркспейса (из workspace://list)'), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Возвращает') and resource ('расписания записи на встречи') and enumerates what a schedule contains (working hours or manual slots, duration, buffers, limits, confirmation method). An agent can distinguish this getter from the sibling save_scheduler/delete_scheduler/duplicate_scheduler tools without opening any 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 clause 'Идентификаторы расписаний приходят только отсюда' gives a clear reason to call this tool (to obtain schedule IDs), and the account-level/quiz-attachment explanation clarifies scope. It does not explicitly name the alternative scheduler tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of the top band.

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