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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned schedule components and the NOT_FOUND condition, though it does not cover auth or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then adds error behavior and the sibling alternative. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with existing annotations and an output schema, this description is complete: it covers what is retrieved, the scheduled status constraint, the NOT_FOUND case, and how to list all scheduled posts instead.

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 single post_id parameter is reinforced by the requirement that the post be SCHEDULED and by pointing to get_posts(status=SCHEDULED) as the source of the ID. Given low schema description coverage, this is meaningful compensation, though it does not elaborate on the nested request wrapper.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: retrieve the current schedule for a SCHEDULED post. It also details what is returned (platforms, UTC times, post actions, Auto-DM rules) and distinguishes the tool from get_posts(status=SCHEDULED).

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?

It clearly states the tool is for a single SCHEDULED post and points to get_posts(status=SCHEDULED) for listing all scheduled posts, plus notes NOT_FOUND when no active schedule exists. It does not explicitly route modification cases to update_schedule or unschedule_post, so it falls short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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