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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds a genuine state-gating constraint not present in structured data. However it never explains the destructive implication (e.g., whether rescheduling replaces an existing slot) or how platform targeting behaves when platforms is omitted, which is exactly the gap the annotations flag.

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 action, then two short supporting sentences with no filler. The opening 'Schedule a video' line is a near-duplicate of the following sentence, a minor redundancy.

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?

Preconditions are covered and annotations carry the safety profile, but with no output schema and only 40% parameter coverage on a 5-param tool with nested objects, the description leaves multi-platform targeting behavior and the effect on an existing schedule unexplained.

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 description coverage is only 40% across 5 parameters including two nested target objects, and the description mentions none of them by name. It adds no syntax, default, or targeting semantics for platforms, scheduledFor, facebookTarget or linkedinTarget, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Schedule a video... for future publishing') and the resource type alone differentiates it from schedulePost and scheduleStory. It also distinguishes scheduling from immediate publishing by naming the 'future publishing' intent.

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?

Gives clear preconditions in both directions: the video must be in one of the listed source states, and pending/generating videos must finish generation first. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., publishVideo for immediate publish, bulkSchedule for multiples), so usage is well-contextualized but not fully routed.

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