list_schedules

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is already covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it enumerates the exact per-dimension return fields (enabled/disabled, interval in days, next/last run timestamps) and warns about the marketing-name convention, which is genuinely useful context.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by return contents and the naming convention. No filler, though the return-field enumeration could be trimmed if a schema existed.

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, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing the per-dimension fields and dimension identifiers. Annotations cover the read-only profile, so the agent has what it needs to call and interpret the result.

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 100%, and the single projectId param is fully documented as coming from list_projects. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get/list) and resource (monitoring schedules), and scopes it to all 6 dimensions. An agent immediately understands this is a read of schedule configuration. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings, but no sibling overlaps meaningfully, so 4 is fair.

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?

Usage is only implied by the read-only nature of the operation; there is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites beyond the required projectId. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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