search_schedule_time_ranges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping behavior ('within a firewall schedule') but does not disclose pagination, client-side filtering, or sort behavior; these are instead covered in the schema descriptions. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource, making it easy to parse and remember.

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?

The tool has comprehensive schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, so the minimal description is mostly sufficient. It could explicitly mention that it lists time ranges for a given schedule, but the name, description, and required parent_id already make that clear. The output schema likely covers return values, so no additional description is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The schema covers parent_id, search_term, pagination, and sort fields adequately, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'time ranges within a firewall schedule'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_schedule_time_range or search_firewall_schedules, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 states the scope ('within a firewall schedule'), implying the need for a parent schedule ID. The schema's parent_id description ('from search_firewall_schedules') reinforces the prerequisite, but the description itself does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. This is clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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