List JSM on-call schedules

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

The annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it documents the response envelope, pagination fields, default output format, and even explains a likely HTTP 401 cause (missing read:ops-config:jira-service-management scope) that distinguishes this family from alert tools. This is far beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Every section earns its place: purpose, usage routing, parameter summary, return shape, examples, and error handling. The most important usage guidance is front-loaded, and the rest is compact and scannable.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters, this is complete. It includes the output structure, pagination semantics, example invocations, and a likely auth failure cause. An agent has everything needed to call it successfully and interpret the result.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter already documented by name, type, default, and constraints. The description largely restates the parameters, but it does add light semantic value by tying limit/offset to pagination and providing an example that says matching on the returned name is how you find a specific schedule id. That is useful but not a major addition.

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 action ('List') and a specific resource ('on-call schedules configured in JSM Operations'), then names the key fields returned: ids, owning teams, and timezones. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like jsm_get_on_call and jsm_get_next_on_call by explicitly positioning itself as the entry point for discovering schedule ids and rotations.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: use when you need a schedule id for jsm_get_on_call or jsm_get_next_on_call, or when you want to enumerate existing rotations. This explicitly names sibling tools and the selection condition, so an agent can route correctly without opening any other definitions.

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