List recurring automation schedules (read)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does contribute one non-obvious behavioral fact, that filters are applied client-side rather than server-side, but it omits how that interacts with cursor/limit pagination or what the default fetch size is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It loses a point for naming a 'status' filter that isn't in the schema, which wastes the agent's attention and could cause a bogus argument.

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 an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition is serviceable, but for a 7-parameter tool with zero required params it should say what happens by default (e.g. limit, whether all orgs are listed without org_id) and clarify the client-side filtering implications.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description only echoes template_id and group_id_substring and introduces a 'status' filter that has no corresponding parameter, so it adds no reliable meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'List recurring automations'. However, it never explains how this differs from the closely named sibling action1_list_automation_schedules, and it advertises a 'status' filter that does not exist in the schema (the nearest is active_only), leaving the scope ambiguous.

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 guidance is given on when to use this instead of action1_list_automation_schedules, action1_list_recent_automations, or action1_automations_summary. An agent facing these similarly named siblings has nothing to disambiguate them.

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