Get scheduled run

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are capped to a bounded history window, a paging token continues within it, and history_scope signals when older upstream history exists beyond it.

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 tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and paging/scope caveats second. Slightly muddied by introducing output-field names that differ from the input parameter names.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully sketches what comes back: a schedule, a bounded history page, a continuation token, and a scope indicator. The token naming mismatch is the only meaningful gap for an agent trying to page correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description's paging note is consistent with the schema's intent. However it references 'next_history_page_token' while the actual input parameter is 'history_page_token', and it never mentions history_size, so it adds little precise parameter meaning.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Retrieve one recurring evaluation schedule') and adds the scope detail of returning a bounded page of API history. The singular 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from list_scheduled_runs, though no sibling is named outright.

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 continuation guidance ('Continue with next_history_page_token') and a hint about when older history may exist, which is useful. But it never says when to prefer this over list_scheduled_runs or get_run, and it omits any prerequisite/authorization context.

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