List archived schedule groups

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that results are paginated and groups are soft-deleted. It doesn't explain pagination mechanics, auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'soft-deleted' implies. This is minimal disclosure.

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 extremely concise, but it's a noun phrase fragment lacking a verb. It's under-specified rather than efficiently structured. For a simple tool it's acceptable, but it doesn't follow a clear 'verb + resource' pattern.

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?

For a simple list operation with an output schema, the description covers the basics (resource type and pagination). However, it doesn't mention ordering, one-page behavior, or relationships to sibling tools. Given the low complexity, it's adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'paginated', which alludes to limit and after_cursor. It doesn't explain their meanings, defaults, or how to use after_cursor for subsequent pages. The agent must infer from names and types, which is insufficient.

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 tool name explicitly states 'list archived schedule groups', and the description 'Soft-deleted schedule groups, paginated' clarifies that it returns soft-deleted (archived) schedule groups with pagination. While there is no explicit verb, the meaning is clear and distinguishes from list_schedule_groups (active groups).

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. It doesn't mention that list_schedule_groups is for active groups, nor any criteria for choosing this tool. The description is a fragment with no usage context.

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