list_automation_schedules

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real value: the exact page envelope {total, offset, has_more, items}, the limit default (20) and ceiling (200), and the fact that `contains` is a server-side filter. It does not mention auth/scope requirements, but the pagination contract is well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then filter guidance. The CVE/product-name example is aimed at vulnerabilities rather than schedules and reads as slightly misplaced, costing a little clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return envelope and pagination bounds, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. Missing org_id/auth context and any sibling routing keep it just short of complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains limit's default and max and the semantics of `contains`, but says nothing about `offset` behavior or what org_id must reference, leaving two of four parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List automation schedules in an organization'), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_automation_instances or list_reports. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from those siblings, but the resource is 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?

Offers operational advice ('check `total` before paging through everything') and explains when `contains` applies, which hints at usage. However it never states when to use this tool versus list_automation_instances or other listing siblings, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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