Get the schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read only' repeats that rather than adding to it. What it does add beyond structured fields is a hard result cap ('Returns at most 50'), which is real behavioral information an agent needs for pagination reasoning, though it omits what happens when the cap is hit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the list contains before moving to the consumer note and the cap. Every sentence carries information, though the 'Read only' fragment adds little given the annotations.

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 steps in to characterize the return ('each line ends with the video_id') and the 50-item limit, which is enough for an agent to call and consume it. It could go one step further on what a 'line' contains besides video_id, but nothing critical is missing for a single-optional-param read tool.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% – 'days' with its default 28 and maximum 90 are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail for 'days' beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the exact resource subset ('scheduled or ready but not yet published'), states ordering ('soonest first'), and clarifies why the tool exists ('the running order: what is going out and when'). This is specific enough to separate it from siblings like runsheet_get_library and runsheet_get_watchlist without opening either 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?

It gives downstream chaining guidance by naming runsheet_schedule_video, runsheet_update_metadata and runsheet_file_to_playlist as consumers of the returned video_id, which tells the agent where this tool fits in a workflow. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over other listing tools (e.g. get_library) or any exclusion conditions.

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