ghl_invoice_schedule_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds technical details like endpoint, OAuth scopes, and pagination params (limit, offset). While these are useful, they don't disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or response structure. The description does not contradict 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 concise, with 5 lines covering purpose, endpoint, scopes, and pagination. It front-loads the purpose ('List schedules') and avoids redundancy. However, the line 'API to get list of schedules' repeats the purpose slightly. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured, earning a 4.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description provides basic context (pagination, OAuth scopes) but fails to describe the response format or explain how optional filters (status, search, date range) affect results. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should offer more guidance on what the list returns. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema already provides descriptions and examples for all 9 parameters. The description only mentions limit and offset as pagination params, which adds minimal context beyond the schema (e.g., 'pass them to page through full result sets'). Since the schema already conveys parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 'List schedules' and 'API to get list of schedules', which identifies the tool as a listing operation for invoice schedules. The verb 'list' and resource 'schedules' are specific, and the tool is distinguishable from sibling tools like ghl_invoice_schedule_get (single schedule) and ghl_invoice_schedule_create. However, it could be more explicit that it lists invoice schedules specifically, as 'schedules' alone might be ambiguous without the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pagination but does not explain when to use list vs get, or how filters (status, search) alter results. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, and sibling tools with different behaviors (activate, cancel) are not differentiated in usage context.

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