whats_on_the_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the date-range scoping and default behavior, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not describe return format or pagination. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, with only two brief lines. The example questions provide quick context, and the core functionality is stated in a single sentence. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters and an output schema (which reduces the need to document return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain how to actually specify a date range (e.g., whether start_date and end_date are needed together, or how days interacts with them), nor does it distinguish this from the many sibling schedule-related tools. This is a gap for a tool with no required params and 0% schema coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'date range (default 7 days)', which vaguely relates to the days/start_date/end_date params but does not explain their interplay, accepted formats, or which param controls what. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states it provides a 'work-order overview for a date range', and the example questions ('What's on the schedule?', 'How many jobs this week?') make the purpose obvious. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as list_calendar_work_orders.

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?

The example questions imply usage for schedule/job count inquiries, and the 'default 7 days' hints at a time-based query. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of how it relates to list_calendar_work_orders or search_work_orders.

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