schedule_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no repetition here. The description adds useful scope about what data is inspected, but nothing about freshness of the values, cost, or any caveats, and the output schema carries the return shape.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the most important item (the FSRS parameters) leads. It loses a point only because it opens as a bare noun phrase rather than with an action verb, which slightly weakens front-loading of intent.

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?

With zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema, the definition needs only to say what this read returns, which it does in three concrete points. The remaining gap is relational: it never states how it relates to personalize_schedule, which is the sibling an agent would most plausibly confuse it with.

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, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. No description text is needed for arguments, and none is wasted on them.

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 names the concrete content the tool surfaces: active FSRS parameters, whether they were fitted to this user's reviews, and the review count. That is specific enough to distinguish it from list/search siblings, but it is a noun phrase with no verb (e.g., 'Returns...'), and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from personalize_schedule, which is the most likely point of confusion.

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 guidance and no mention of alternatives. The description even raises the fitting question ('whether they were fitted to this user's own reviews') without routing the agent to personalize_schedule when fitting is what it actually wants, so the boundary between inspecting and changing the schedule is left implicit.

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