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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds non-obvious behavior: results are ordered by creation time newest-first, timestamps are ISO, and status=scheduled ignores the lookback window entirely. That last point is a genuinely surprising query behavior an agent could not infer from 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?

Front-loaded with identity and scope, then return fields, then ordering/pagination, then the alternative — every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated. The single dense paragraph reads cleanly despite carrying a lot of information.

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 document return values, yet it still summarizes what each entry carries (channel, account, caption, format, timing, live link, failure reason). Combined with ordering, pagination, and the alternative route, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the limit default, the cursor contract, and the lookbackDays/status interaction. The description restates pagination and the queue caveat rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (Rawa's publishing queue) with precise scope: posts scheduled or sent, by the user or via submit_publication, and enumerates the lifecycle states. It also names the sibling tool it is not (list_recent_posts), letting an agent distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for the Rawa publishing queue, use list_recent_posts for everything on the channels with metrics. It also gives the operational rule for pagination ('follow nextCursor with the same filters') and the status=scheduled whole-queue caveat, so nothing about when/how to call it is left implicit.

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