get_schedule_v3_override

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only a trivial 'Returns: The override' which is redundant given the output schema. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error cases, rate limits) are disclosed. With annotations covering the basics, the description adds minimal value beyond a score of 3.

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 reasonably concise at 8 lines, with clear sections (Args, Returns). However, the 'Returns: The override' line could be omitted since it repeats the obvious. No fluff, but slightly verbose for the minimal content.

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 the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple get-by-ID operation. However, it fails to distinguish from related sibling tools (e.g., get_schedule_v3_rotation) or provide context on when this tool is appropriate versus similar tools. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add a bit: it states 'schedule_id: The ID of the v3 schedule' and 'override_id: The ID of the override', which clarifies the context slightly beyond the schema titles. However, this is still minimal and doesn't provide format or syntax details. Baseline for 0% coverage is low, and the description barely meets it.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('a specific override'), and the context ('within a v3 schedule'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_schedule_v3_overrides (list) and get_schedule_v3_rotation (different resource).

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. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool is for retrieving a single override by ID, while list_schedule_v3_overrides should be used to browse overrides. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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