list_scheduled_queries

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that SQL content is excluded from responses to prevent token limits, describing the pagination mechanism (cursor-based), and detailing the return structure. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or other operational constraints.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, explanation of scheduled queries, important note about SQL exclusion, usage alternative, and detailed return format. While comprehensive, some information in the 'Returns' section could be considered redundant since an output schema exists, making it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (list operation with pagination and filtering), the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It explains what scheduled queries are, notes important behavioral constraints (SQL exclusion), provides clear usage guidance with alternatives, details the return structure, and includes permissions information. With both annotations and output schema available, the description adds substantial value without unnecessary repetition.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters (cursor, limit, name_contains). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact or affect results.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all scheduled queries from your Panther instance'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_scheduled_query by noting that SQL content is excluded from list responses. This provides clear differentiation from related tools.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating when to use this tool ('to list all scheduled queries') versus when to use an alternative ('Use get_scheduled_query() to retrieve the full SQL for a specific query'). It also includes important context about SQL content exclusion to prevent token limits, which helps the agent understand when this tool is appropriate.

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