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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is added context, and it delivers: it discloses that the result is state-agnostic (scheduled, draft, published, errored) and enumerates the returned item fields including error and media details. No pagination or result-size limits are mentioned for a potentially wide window.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then the required-parameter rule, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, yet it still sketches item contents, which is a plus. The only real gap is the absence of any note on result size, pagination, or ordering across a year-long window.

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 baseline would be 3; the description adds genuine meaning by marking startDate/endDate as required UTC and explaining the wide-window idiom for listing everything. The optional 'customer' filter is left to the schema alone.

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 a specific verb (list), resource (the organization's posts), and scope (scheduled within a date window), and notes it maps to the "List Posts" API endpoint. Siblings like deletePostTool and postSettingsTool operate on single posts, so this reads as a distinct bulk-list operation.

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?

Explains that both dates are required (UTC) and gives a concrete recipe for the common case: pass a wide window such as now to a year ahead to see all upcoming posts. It also clarifies that all states are returned, which prevents agents from trying to filter by state. It stops short of naming alternatives among the many post tools.

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