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

Annotations are empty, so description must disclose behavior. It adds '[Auth Required]' and header details, which is helpful. However, it omits response format, error handling, and side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation-less read operation.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence delivers purpose, the second adds critical auth instructions. Every word earns its place.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth. It lacks explicit mention of the return value (schedule object), but the name and common usage make it sufficient. Slightly incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states 'Get a specific agent schedule by ID' with a specific verb and resource. Though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get-schedules, the singular versus plural naming convention suggests distinct purposes, but lacks explicit contrast.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create-schedule, get-schedules). The description only provides authentication details, but no context for selection among siblings.

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