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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds value by stating the return includes the resolved window, counts, and matching post summaries, clarifying what the agent will receive. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss pagination or ordering.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, lists the key filtering options, and summarizes the output. There is no redundant or filler content, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return concept adequately. It doesn't explain filter exclusivity or default behavior, but these are inferable from the schema and the output schema handles return details. A compact but sufficient description for a read-only listing tool.

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 78%, with detailed descriptions for most parameters (date, timezone, relative_range, scheduled_from, scheduled_until, workspace_id, organization_id). The description offers a concise high-level synthesis of the filter modes but doesn't add extra meaning for skip/limit or parameter interactions. Since the schema carries the bulk of parameter semantics, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists scheduled posts and specifies multiple filtering dimensions: workspace, date, relative date window, or explicit time range. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like postly_list_posts by targeting scheduled posts and from postly_get_post_status by indicating it returns summaries and counts.

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 makes it apparent when to use this tool: whenever you need to list scheduled posts with flexible time windows. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like postly_list_posts or provide exclusions, but the scope is clear enough to guide selection. Missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance prevents a 5.

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