create_scheduled_report

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

Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds 'recurring email delivery' but fails to disclose important behavioral details like whether it overwrites existing schedules, what happens on duplicate calls, or any rate limits. With annotations present, the description adds minimal value.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, very concise. However, the brevity omits potentially important information that could be included without sacrificing conciseness, such as prerequisites or output.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, any constraints on parameters (e.g., valid emali formats), or what constitutes success. A mutation tool with medium complexity needs more context.

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%, so all parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Schedule' and the resource 'report' with the purpose of 'recurring email delivery'. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like 'create_report' which creates the report definition itself, making the purpose clear and specific.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'generate_report' for one-time generation or 'schedule_notification' for other scheduling. It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., report must exist) or any conditions for use.

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