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

Annotations already cover readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description focuses on what the data looks like: row field order (draft, brief, goalFit, status, channel, outcome), why queued rows are waiting, and the staleness rule. The ordering guarantee that stale rows come last is genuinely useful context beyond 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool lists, then row contents, then queued semantics, then the stale ordering caveat. No filler, and the actionable instruction about stale rows lands at the end where an agent will act on it.

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 read-only list tool with five optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden well by describing row fields and ordering. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the response without further documentation.

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 is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining the three distinct reasons a row can be queued (approval, manual tap on a platform that forbids automated posting, autopilot schedule) and the two-week staleness threshold that drives includeStale. It also clarifies that the draft is what the founder acts on, framing why includeContent matters.

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 opening sentence names the specific resource and enumerates the action types it covers (posts, outreach, listings, ads), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like results, report, or run, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: queued rows 'waiting for your approval' hints at the approve sibling, and the instruction to 'skip or reschedule' stale rows gives a follow-up behavior. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus results/report, nor a stated workflow such as fetching an action before calling approve or run.

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