Get scheduled messages

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond those annotations. 'Body fields: none' and the GET method are trivial for a read-only list operation, and it does not describe result shape, pagination behavior, or API-specific side effects. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 entry is compact and front-loaded, with the purpose first and the endpoint, body note, and reference following. The first sentence repeats the tool title and the reference link is nonessential, but the overall entry is short and free of redundancy.

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?

The operation is simple, and the schema plus annotations provide the important safety and pagination facts. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe what a response contains, nor does it clarify list-vs-single semantics relative to get_a_scheduled_message. The endpoint and reference make invocation possible, but a modest completeness gap remains.

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 description itself says nothing about the query parameter object, but the input schema covers 100% of the single parameter and already documents search, sortBy, sortOrder, comma-joining, and explicit offset/limit pagination. With this level of schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get scheduled messages') and cites the exact list endpoint, which is enough to distinguish it from the singular get_a_scheduled_message sibling. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with that singular getter or state that it returns a collection, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to prefer this list operation over get_a_scheduled_message, nor does it clarify that results require pagination handling. The reference link is present, but there are no explicit usage conditions or alternative selection cues.

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