Reports_getReportSchedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does convey read-only intent via 'Returns' and adds a useful execution-environment caveat that it 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here.' However, it omits authorization needs, pagination, whether filters are required, and what 'report schedule details' contain. It remains non-contradictory but thin on behavioral disclosure.

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 two short sentences and wastes few words, front-loading the key return behavior after an unnecessary 'Catalog entry' fragment. The deployment note is a useful caveat and the filter statement is precise at a high level. It is concise without omitting the central idea.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks enough to invoke correctly: no filter field names or types, no indication of whether the 0-parameter schema means no arguments are accepted, and no return structure. The description is adequate only as a high-level catalog entry, not as complete invocation guidance for a blank schema with additionalProperties. It also never references a sibling for comparison.

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 schema declares zero properties (additionalProperties: true), so there are no formal parameter semantics to document; per the baseline this should not be penalized heavily. The description does mention 'filters that you specify,' which is accurate but vague—it gives no example filter keys or value formats. This is acceptable under the zero-parameter baseline, though not exemplary.

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 uses a clear verb ('Returns') and names the resource ('report schedule details') plus a selection mechanism ('filters'), so an agent can see it is a read/list operation over report schedules. It is distinct from siblings like Reports_getReportSchedule by pluralizing, though it never explicitly contrasts itself. The odd 'Catalog entry' and deployment note do not obscure the core purpose.

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?

No sentence tells the agent when to choose this over sibling tools such as Reports_getReportSchedule or Reports_getReports, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The deployment note explains where it runs, not when to invoke it. An agent would have to infer from the name alone how to route between schedule-list vs schedule-get.

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