get_scheduled_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered structurally. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, authentication, or result shape, but 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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only list operation.

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?

Annotations and fully documented optional parameters cover most invocation requirements for a simple read-only tool. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify the return shape or how this differs from get_reports, leaving moderate context gaps.

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?

All three parameters (limit, enabled_only, include_nextgen) have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 the verb and resource clearly ('Get reports') and narrows the scope with 'with schedules configured', distinguishing it from generic report tools like get_reports. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the qualifier gives enough purpose differentiation.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_reports, get_report, or update_report_schedule. The only usage signal is implied by the resource qualifier, with no explicit conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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