get_schedule_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., so no contradiction. The description adds that it returns runs and skips within a date range, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not add details on rate limits or other traits, but given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 two sentences plus parameter list, front-loaded with purpose. The example usage is efficient and adds value without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values don't need explanation) and annotations are strong, the description covers purpose, parameters, and a use case. It is complete for a simple read-only query tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates. It explains 'schedule_id' as 'Schedule UUID', and specifies 'start' and 'end' dates with ISO format and defaults ('today - 30 days' and 'today'). This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'past runs + skips for a schedule in a date range', using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_run_history' and 'get_schedule' by focusing on runs and skips for a single schedule with date filtering.

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 provides a concrete use case ('did my Summer Lawn actually water last week?') and specifies default date ranges, giving clear context for when to use. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or compare to similar siblings like 'get_run_history', so it's slightly incomplete.

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