List scheduling links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the user-scoping constraint ('the user's') and the shape of the returned records (id, name, slug, url, durations, state), which partially substitutes for the missing output schema, but says nothing about pagination or filtering behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core purpose up front and the field enumeration in a compact parenthetical. No wasted prose, though the parenthetical is arguably filler given the schema already exposes the filterable state.

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 simple read-only listing tool, the description covers scope and returned fields, which compensates for the absent output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. It could still note that results are paginated and filterable via the state parameter to be fully self-contained.

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 75% (after/limit/before documented in-schema; state has only an enum), so the schema does most of the work. The description lists 'state' as a returned field but does not explain that the state parameter filters by active/disabled, nor does it add meaning to the cursor or limit parameters.

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 and resource ('List the user's scheduling links') and even enumerates the returned fields. It is distinguishable from get_scheduling_link (singular) only implicitly via the plural name, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer get_scheduling_link for a single link, or that this tool should be used for browsing/auditing the user's links; only the plural name implies listing semantics.

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