List scheduled runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is lower. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond the schema - results are returned as a bounded page - but says nothing about ordering, default page size, or what a schedule record contains.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource being listed and following with the filter and pagination facts. Nothing is repeated from the name or title.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, filters and pagination adequately; no output schema exists so return-shape detail is not required. A brief note on ordering or default paging would close the remaining gap.

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%: each of the four parameters is documented in the schema with type constraints, ranges and defaults. The description only restates that filtering is possible by enabled state and run template, adding no syntax, format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("List recurring evaluation schedules") and enumerates the two filter dimensions, so the agent knows it is a paginated listing of schedules rather than runs, templates, or reports. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near siblings like list_runs or list_run_templates, which would be needed for 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the listing call for schedules and that enabled/template_id narrow results, but the description never says when to prefer it over list_runs or get_scheduled_run, nor does it state prerequesites. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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