Get Schedule Rotation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that restatement — no notes on what happens for a missing/invalid id, no cross-account/visibility scope despite openWorldHint, and no mention of the returned rotation shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though borderline thin for a tool with a real behavioral surface.

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 tool is a simple single-param getter with a fully documented schema and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, it omits any error/not-found behavior or relationship to the parent schedule, leaving it merely adequate.

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 100% and the schema already explains that the id fills `/v1/schedule_rotations/{id}` and that no `schedule_rotation_id` argument exists. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('schedule rotation') plus the lookup key ('by id'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like list_schedule_rotations or update_schedule_rotation, 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_schedule_rotations (to find the id) or get_schedule (parent resource). The 'by id' phrasing only weakly implies a lookup-after-listing workflow; no alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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