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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately explains what the tool returns — schedule information for automatic group launches — and notes the default behavior when no parameter is passed. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error cases, or what happens if the group does not exist.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and then adds the important default-mode detail. Every clause 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 read tool with one optional parameter and an output schema available, the description is nearly complete. It states the purpose, trigger types, and default behavior. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit statement about the parameter's filter semantics, but this is reasonably inferable from the schema and the default note.

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?

The schema itself provides zero description coverage for the 'group' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by noting that omitting the parameter returns all schedules, which implies the parameter serves as a group filter. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it stops short of explicitly stating that passing a group name filters to that group's schedule.

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 names a clear action ('Показывает, когда группы запускаются сами') and a specific resource (group schedules), and it distinguishes the tool from the sibling parsee_set_schedule by being the read/get counterpart. It also clarifies the scope: all schedules by default, with specific trigger types (weekday time or every N hours).

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 provides useful context for calling the tool: without the parameter, all schedules are returned. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance or name sibling tools like parsee_set_schedule or parsee_status.

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