get_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the important behavioral nuance that output degrades to flags-only without admin rights. It does not describe pagination or any rate/size considerations, but for a zero-parameter read that is minor.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The returned content is front-loaded and the permission caveat follows as a qualifier, which is the right order for an agent scanning for what it will get back.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the entire burden of explaining the return value, and it does so concretely: named fields plus the shape and domain of the weekly grid. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 no parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify. The description correctly implies no input is needed by framing the call purely in terms of what is returned.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Download Station schedule') and then enumerates exactly what the response contains: enabled flag, limited-speed rates, and a 7-day × 24-hour weekly plan with three state values. This is clearly the read counterpart to the sibling set_schedule, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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 usage condition: retrieving the weekly plan requires a Download Station manager/admin account, and without one only the flags are returned. That is a real prerequisite rather than generic filler, though it never explicitly names set_schedule as the mutation alternative or states when not to call it.

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