faz_list_report_schedules

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'configured' schedules and the ADOM scope, but it does not disclose pagination, filtering, or authentication requirements. The description 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?

The description is a single sentence that starts with the verb 'List', immediately states the resource and scope, and contains no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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 simple list operation with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it omits usage context and leaves the 'adom' parameter unexplained, which would require an agent to infer meaning or seek additional documentation.

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 one parameter 'adom' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description mentions 'in an ADOM' which aligns with the parameter but does not explain its format, optionality, or how to specify the ADOM name. This adds very little beyond the schema's bare title 'Adom'.

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 'List' and identifies a distinct resource: 'configured SQL report schedules' within an ADOM. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like faz_list_report_templates and faz_list_report_layouts, which target different resources.

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 description implies usage through the tool's name and resource scope ('SQL report schedules', 'in an ADOM'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no direct guidance, but the context is somewhat inferable.

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