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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key persistence trait ('runs even when your agent session ends'), but does not mention side effects, required permissions, cancellation paths, or response behavior, which are relevant for a creation tool.

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?

The description is only two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by key input examples. Every word adds value, and it is easily scannable.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description omits what response to expect or how to manage the schedule afterward. While the sibling names suggest complementary tools, the description alone does not fully cover the operational context for an agent.

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 all six parameters described. The description highlights the three main parameters (URL, interval, duration), but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Register a persistent cron schedule') and specifies the key inputs (URL, frequency, duration). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel_schedule and check_schedule by emphasizing creation and persistence.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a schedule must persist beyond the agent session. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the persistence framing provides enough guidance to differentiate from sibling tools.

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