get_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds minimal behavior context beyond this, and does not mention return format or error behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

One short sentence contains all the core information with no filler or repetition. The resource and lookup key are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-required-parameter, read-only getter with a strong annotation profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It implies the return value is the scheduled job, though it does not explicitly describe the response shape or how to discover a schedule_id.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for schedule_id, so the description's 'by ID' partially compensates by confirming that the parameter is the identifier. It does not specify the ID's format or how to obtain it, though the parameter name is self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a scheduled job'), and qualifies it with 'by ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list, create, update, delete, and toggle schedule 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 phrase 'by ID' tells an agent this is the point-lookup path rather than a list or mutation operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_schedules or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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