get_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does add useful context: the fields parameter returns only requested top-level keys, which is 'cheaper' — implying a smaller payload. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, error behavior, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a 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?

The description is two short paragraphs: the first states the core purpose, the second gives a focused usage tip. Every sentence earns its place, and key information is front-loaded. There is no redundant or verbose wording.

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?

This is a simple read tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential purpose, the time blocks detail, and an optimization for the fields parameter. Missing explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_schedules or what happens on error, but overall sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'fields' with concrete semantics: a comma-separated list of top-level keys that limits the payload, with a cost/benefit note. The other parameters (schedule_id, account_id) are self-explanatory from their names, and the description adds enough value for the one non-obvious parameter.

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 opens with 'Get full details for a specific schedule, including time blocks,' which uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('specific schedule'), clearly distinguishing it from list_schedules. It also specifies what the response includes (time blocks), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by explaining when to use the 'fields' parameter (when checking several schedules in a row) and implies the tool is for single-schedule retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_schedules or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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