List Schedules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The 'No PIN required' disclosure is genuinely useful, and 'active' scoping clarifies what is returned. However, it does not describe output format, ordering, or pagination behavior, which is a gap for a list tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral note (No PIN required) is appended efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 one-param tool the purpose is stated, but the api_key parameter is left undocumented, no output format is described, and there is no return-value guidance. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate more.

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% and the sole parameter api_key is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no meaning to the parameter, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a clear verb (List) + resource (active recurring/one-off bill schedules) + scope (linked wallet). It distinguishes from siblings by action type: schedule_bill creates, cancel_schedule cancels, while this reads. It is specific but doesn't explicitly name which sibling it is not, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusion conditions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' in contrast to sibling action verbs. An agent gets no help deciding between this and transaction_history or list_plans.

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