Get Schedule By ID

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safety. The description adds that it returns 'a JSON object describing the requested Scheduling records', but does not elaborate on error handling, rate limits, or response structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary details (alternative usage, required params, endpoint). It is fairly concise, though it could be slightly more streamlined. Each sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, required parameters, and some usage context. However, it does not explain pagination parameters (page, per_page) mentioned in schema, nor describe the response fields beyond 'full details'. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description lists the required three parameters but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get a single schedule by id' and 'fetch the full details of a specific Scheduling records', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the Show Project API for time zone needs, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_schedules.

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?

It provides an alternative usage: 'Use the Show Project API when you need the project time zone'. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool (e.g., for listing multiple schedules) or mention prerequisites beyond required parameters.

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