Schedule history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering, the included fields, and the possible invoice statuses, including the nuanced 'since deleted' state. It does not cover empty results, pagination, or authentication, but it provides substantial behavioral detail.

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?

One dense sentence delivers the purpose, ordering, output fields, statuses, id discovery route, and a Pro tier note. Everything earns its place and the most identifying information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what the log contains, how it is ordered, and how to obtain the id. Minor omissions like empty results or pagination are not significant enough to lower the score further.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the single id parameter refers to one schedule and even points to schedule_list as the way to find that id. It does not give a format or example, but for a single string id this is adequate.

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 identifies the tool as an audit log for a single schedule id, listing the exact fields returned and the ordering (oldest first). It is distinct from sibling tools like schedule_get or schedule_list in both resource and scope.

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 use for retrieving audit history and notes that schedule_list finds the id, which is useful indirect guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over schedule_get or schedule_upcoming, nor does it give exclusions.

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