get_band_schedule

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses automatic bounded reconnection, local-wall-clock versus UTC/timezone conversion, the 5..90 timeout range, the no-invented-data guarantee, and the use of a read to reconcile unknown writes. readOnlyHint=false is not contradicted by the described automatic reconnect side effect.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and then adding only high-value operational details. Every sentence covers a distinct concern: scope, connectivity, timezone, timeout, failure behavior, and reconciliation.

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's complexity (device reconnects, timezone conversion, optional parameters) is fully addressed, and the output schema covers return values. An agent receives enough information to call the tool correctly, including defaults and failure-mode guarantees.

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?

With no property descriptions in the schema, the description compensates by specifying timezone default ('server setting'), timezone conversion behavior, and timeout bounds (5..90). 'kind' is less explained, but the enum values are self-explanatory alongside the phrase 'alarms/reminders.'

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the resource ('band alarms/reminders') plus what is returned ('IDs, repeat rules and device capacity'). This clearly distinguishes it from the write/delete sibling tools (set_band_alarm, set_band_reminder, delete_band_schedule).

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Read again to reconcile an earlier write whose outcome was unknown,' which tells the agent when this read is especially valuable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling set.

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