my_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description contributes real extra context: times are church-local with a returned time_zone, and times is null when Planning Center hides the plan. These nullability and timezone semantics are exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loads the user-relevant outcome ("When you're next serving") before the field list, and every clause carries information. Slightly dense, semicolon-joined phrasing but no filler sentences.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the return-value burden and discharges it well (fields, timezone, null case, IDs for follow-on tools). The only material gap is the undocumented limit parameter, which matters for a list-style tool.

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 single parameter (limit, default 10) has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning, maximum, or pagination role is undocumented anywhere. The description compensates richly on the return side but leaves the only input unexplained.

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 concretely states what the tool returns — the user's next serving assignment with date, service/rehearsal times, team, position and status. It never names itself against the sibling tools it sits beside (plan_team, service_order, etc.), so the differentiation is only implicit via the returned IDs.

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 implied by "When you're next serving" and by the note that service_type_id/plan_id are returned "for plan_team, service_order and attachments," which hints at a chaining workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no statement of an alternative source for schedule data.

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