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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload ('details plus recent runs'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what 'recent' means, whether runs are paginated or truncated, or what happens with an invalid schedule_id.

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?

Five words is efficient and front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of under-specification for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter. Conciseness here costs clarity rather than serving it.

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?

Low complexity (one required param), but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at minimum state that it takes a schedule id and returns that schedule's configuration and run history. It covers the return shape only partially and omits the input entirely.

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% for the single required parameter schedule_id, so the description must compensate and it does not — it never mentions that the call is keyed by a schedule identifier or where that id comes from. The name is self-explanatory but the description adds nothing.

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 phrase 'Automation details plus recent runs' does identify the resource (a schedule/automation) and hints at a read operation returning detail plus run history, which distinguishes it loosely from schedule_list. But there is no verb, and the tool name's 'get' behavior is only implied rather than stated.

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 versus schedule_list, schedule_run, or agent_job_get. The agent must infer from the name alone that this fetches a single schedule by id while schedule_list enumerates them.

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