get-schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only, single-resource retrieval with no side effects, but it does not mention behavior for missing IDs, authentication requirements, or response details.

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 fluff or repeated schema information. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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-parameter getter with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: an agent knows the operation, the resource, and the required input. It does not describe edge-case behavior or output shape, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter scheduleId, describing it as 'The schedule ID'. The description adds little semantic value beyond reaffirming 'by ID', so the schema already carries the parameter detail.

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 'Get' with a clear resource 'specific availability schedule' and a scope qualifier 'by ID'. It clearly distinguishes returning one schedule from listing schedules, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool should be used when a scheduleId is already known, which is a usage signal. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus list-schedules or other alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions.

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