Reports_getReportSchedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool 'Returns report schedule details' and 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here.' It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, what errors may occur, or what the returned details contain.

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, but the leading 'Catalog entry.' is an unexplained fragment that does not earn its place, and the meaningful behavior appears only in the final sentence. There is no real verbosity, yet the structure is not effectively front-loaded.

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?

Given the empty input schema, absent annotations, and missing output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: how to identify the report schedule, what arguments are accepted, and what the returned details look like. The deployment caveat is useful but does not compensate for the lack of an actionable invocation contract.

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?

The input schema defines zero properties, which sets a baseline of 4, and the description does add the important notion that a report schedule must be specified. However, it never says what parameter name or value to use, and the schema's additionalProperties:true leaves the invocation contract entirely open, so an agent still cannot confidently construct a correct call.

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 core sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns report schedule details for the report schedule that you specify.' This clearly communicates a focused read operation for a single schedule, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling Reports_getReportSchedules, so the contrast is only inferable from the name and phrasing.

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 provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, and it names no sibling tools or exclusions. The phrase 'that you specify' only implies a single-schedule use case but does not say how that differs from the plural getReportSchedules or other report tools.

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