schedule_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the description's added value is limited to disclosing the payload contents (next dates and last-run outcome), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about ordering, scope (all schedules vs. only active ones), or whether a missing last execution is reported.

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 short sentence with no filler, leading with the verb and resource and then the returned fields. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials by naming what comes back. It falls slightly short on scope (all vs. active schedules) and ordering, which matter for interpreting a list result with no output schema to consult.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the sentence correctly implies an unfiltered full listing.

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 specific verb ('Elenca' = lists) with a specific resource ('fatture ricorrenti' = recurring invoices) and names the returned fields (upcoming dates, last execution outcome). It is clearly distinguishable from schedule_get/update/delete, though it never names those siblings explicitly and the description is in Italian while the tool name and schema are English.

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?

Listing semantics imply 'use this to enumerate all schedules' versus schedule_get for a single one, but the description never states that contrast or any prerequisites. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so the routing must be inferred from the tool name.

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