Schedule Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds the context that it inspects a 'configured' schedule window, which implies it returns configuration details rather than dynamic state. This is a minor addition beyond annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. It contains no filler or redundant wording, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 that the tool has an output schema (which is not shown here but is indicated as present) and no parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It conveys the purpose clearly. The only gap is the absence of context about when to use it, but that falls under usage guidelines, not completeness of the operation itself.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. No additional parameter information is required.

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 clearly states a specific action (inspect) on a specific resource (configured trading schedule window). It is more specific than the name alone and implies what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_trading_status or health, which could also relate to trading state.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools (e.g., get_trading_status, health) that might be confused with this one, and the description does not clarify under what circumstances an agent should choose this over them.

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