Scheduled Google Play rollout plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by explaining the status lifecycle (ACTIVE, PAUSED, HALTED by a safeguard, STOPPED, DONE) and what a step means (percent and hours after the step before). That is behavioral context annotations cannot convey. It does not cover pagination or call cost, keeping it at 4.

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 returned data is front-loaded in one dense clause and the read-only constraint follows immediately, with no filler. The trailing one-word 'Team.' fragment is slightly cryptic and costs a point. Overall it is tight and well ordered.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must characterize the return payload, and it does so field by field, including status values and step timing semantics. Combined with the read-only stance and the single well-documented parameter, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret it. Missing only explicit guidance on where package ids come from at call time or how large the response can be.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already says it accepts a package name or app id from release_status. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The important semantic — how to obtain a valid app identifier — is carried by the schema, not the prose.

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 a specific resource (scheduled staged rollout plans for one shared Google Play app) and enumerates exactly what is exposed: release, steps, completion state, next step time, status, and reason. That inventory distinguishes it from generic siblings like release_status or release_overview without needing to name them. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, so it is not a 5.

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 gives a clear negative guideline — plans are set, paused, resumed and stopped by a person in the dashboard or the CLI, never from here — which correctly prevents an agent from looking for write capability. However, there is no positive routing: nothing says when to reach for this versus release_status or release_checklist. Usage is implied by the resource rather than stated.

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