Get a specific automation schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required permission (view_automations), which is genuine value, but says nothing about what happens with an invalid ID or missing scope.

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 first sentence merely repeats the title verbatim and the second restates it again ('Gets a scheduled automation specified by its ID'). The permission note is the only sentence that earns its place, so there is noticeable redundancy.

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?

With a full schema, annotations and an output schema, the essential call requirements are covered, and the permission hint fills the main gap. Reading is straightforward for an agent despite the thin prose.

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 100%, including org_id, verbose, automation_id and the response_format enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific automation schedule') and clarifies retrieval by ID, which distinguishes it from action1_list_automation_schedules by implication. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers this is for fetching a single schedule when the ID is known. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus list_automation_schedules or get_automation_status, though the 'Perm: view_automations' prerequisite is a useful addition.

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