Get a scheduled message

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the HTTP method and reference URL but does not disclose response format, pagination, or error behavior. No contradiction with the annotations; the description aligns with the read-only nature.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, immediately identifies the operation and endpoint, and includes a reference link. No wasted words; every element serves a purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple GET request.

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 single-fetch tool, the description plus schema and annotations provide enough to invoke it: the ID is required in the path, and safety is declared via annotations. The lack of an output schema or explicit response description is a minor gap but not critical for a GET that returns the resource, especially with a reference link provided.

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 50%; the query parameter has a generic description inside the schema, but the description text does not explain any parameter except implying `scheduledMessageId` from the path. The description adds little value beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the coverage gap, especially for the query parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a scheduled message') and includes the exact API path. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling `xmatters_get_scheduled_messages` (plural list) and other scheduled-message operations. An agent can identify the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It provides the endpoint and a reference link but no directive like 'use when you have a scheduledMessageId' or 'for lists, use get_scheduled_messages instead.' Usage is only implied by the resource name and path.

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