list_schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the owner filtering behavior, which is more param-related. It does not mention default behavior (e.g., returns all schedules without owner) or any pagination, sorting, or permission details.

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 a single sentence followed by a brief parameter detail, both concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value: the first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies the key parameter. No superfluous content.

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 presence of annotations and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the basic operation and the owner parameter. However, it does not specify the scope of results (e.g., lists all schedules accessible to the user) or how results are ordered, which could be important for an agent selecting the tool. It is minimally adequate but lacks some contextual details.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema for the owner parameter, clarifying it accepts ID, exact name, or email. The limit parameter is well-described in the schema (default 50, max 200). With 100% schema coverage, the description elevates understanding of the owner input, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 lists 'calendar scheduling links/availability schedules', which is a specific resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_calendars (which lists calendar entities) and get_schedule (which retrieves a single schedule). However, it could be more precise by explicitly differentiating from these related tools.

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 only usage guidance is that the owner parameter is optional and accepts an employee/person ID, name, or email. There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_calendars, get_schedule, or list_work_slots, nor any mention of when not to use it.

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