get_playlist_item_schedule

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, so the bar for extra behavioral disclosure is lower. The description goes beyond that by explaining weekday numbering (0=Sunday through 6=Saturday), that times are returned as stored without timezone conversion, and that always_active is about schedule windows rather than the separate visibility flag. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know before reasoning about the result.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the main purpose is front-loaded, then the weekday encoding, then the storage/timezone caveats. There is no redundancy or tangential content.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering idempotence/safety and no output schema, the description covers the most important semantics: what is returned, the weekday range, the timezone limitation, and the meaning of always_active. A small gap remains because the response structure is not sketched, but the tool is simple and the description is sufficiently complete for a likely call.

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 0% and the only parameter, item_id, is not discussed directly. Still, the description says 'for a playlist item,' so an agent can infer that item_id identifies a playlist item whose schedule is being fetched. With one simple resource-ID parameter and no enums, the description provides adequate but not explicit parameter clarification.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read weekly display windows for a playlist item.' It clearly identifies what is being retrieved and differentiates this read operation from mutation siblings like replace_playlist_item_schedule and set_playlist_item_visibility. The note that always_active is not the visibility flag further prevents confusion with the separate visibility tool.

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 clearly implies a read-only inspection use case, and the 'Read' verb plus the warning about the visibility flag provides some usage signal. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus replace_playlist_item_schedule or set_playlist_item_visibility, nor does it mention that schedule mutations belong to a different sibling tool. Usage guidance is present but left largely to inference.

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