schedule_get

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new behavioral content: the response contains a history plus the next N occurrences, which is the main unknown for a tool with no output schema. It stops short of saying how the history is bounded or what happens if the recurrence is not found.

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?

A single compact sentence that leads with the resource and follows with the returned content; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of omitting any routing guidance, but there is no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how the two inputs are interpreted, which is most of what an agent needs. It is missing explicit disambiguation from schedule_list and error behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it clarifies that the required string can be an id or a name, and that "N" in the returned dates corresponds to the `upcoming` parameter. The documented constraint on `upcoming` (default 6, range 1-36) is not repeated in prose, but it is visible in the schema.

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+resource combination: retrieves the detail of a recurrence ("Dettaglio di una ricorrenza"), and adds that the result includes history and the next N dates. An agent can distinguish it from schedule_list/schedule_create without opening a schema, though the description never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. It does not say to call schedule_list first to find the id, nor when to prefer this over schedule_list or schedule_update, and no prerequisites or failure conditions (e.g. unknown id) are mentioned.

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