Cron schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations lack: the free tier of 25 calls per day and the subsequent $0.001 per call x402 payment model, which affects invocation planning.

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 the core function, followed by usage and then cost. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema covering return values, full parameter documentation, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to add purpose, usage, and cost — all of which it does. An agent has everything required 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 100%, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents for expression, timezone, count, and from. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pair ('explain a cron expression', 'list its next run times') plus the scope ('any time zone'). This is clearly distinct from the timing siblings like timezone_convert or recurring_dates, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

'Use to check or debug crontab and scheduled-job schedules' gives a concrete use context and implicitly excludes general date arithmetic. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for overlapping cases, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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