Get one schedule

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature ('Return one schedule in full') and lists the output fields, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects (though likely none) or error conditions, and does not clarify whether 'client' refers to a client name exactly as stored or if it supports partial matches.

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 concise and front-loaded: it immediately states the primary action ('Return one schedule in full') and the identifier options ('by id or client'), then lists the contents in a compact list. The final sentence about schedule_history is a single useful clarification without 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?

For a simple read-only get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states what is returned and differentiates from the history log. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning that the tool is read-only or that it does not modify data, but that is implied. The absence of explicit error handling or edge cases (e.g., what if no schedule found) is minor.

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 schema description covers the parameter fully ('Schedule id, or a client name'), but the description adds semantic context by explaining that the identifier can be either an id or a client name, and clarifies the return type ('full schedule'). Since coverage is 100%, this is a good baseline, and the description adds value beyond the 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's purpose: it returns a single schedule in full, by id or client, and enumerates the contents (items, cadence, dates, etc.). It also differentiates from sibling tool schedule_history by noting that it is the log, not the full schedule.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need the full schedule details, as opposed to the history log. It also mentions that the identifier can be a schedule id or a client name. However, it does not explicitly contrast with schedule_list (which likely lists schedules) or other siblings, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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