hcm_search_schedules

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, so the description's search wording is consistent. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation: it does not mention whether results are paginated, what entities are returned, or any limitations. The bar is lower because annotations exist, but the description contributes almost nothing new.

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 short and free of filler, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single generic sentence does not serve the complexity of the tool, especially given the undocumented parameters and absent output schema.

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, no parameter descriptions, and no usage context, the description carries the full burden of enabling correct invocation. It fails to explain how to construct a search, what the response shape is, or how pagination works. The agent cannot reliably select or call this tool based on the provided information.

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 for the undocumented parameters q, limit, finder, and offset. It does not mention any of them, leaving the agent with no sense of what values are valid, what q means, or how finder differs from q. This is a critical gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search work schedules.' It is unambiguous about the operation being a search over schedule data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like hcm_get_schedule or hcm_search_time_records, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_get_schedule or hcm_search_time_records. The description provides no context about intended search scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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