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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes real behavioral detail beyond that: ordering ('soonest first'), the status taxonomy (scheduled, processing/publishing, published, failed), per-account published_at, and the 30-day window on include_past.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded with the core behavior and the include_past note lands at the end where it belongs. The sentence about retrying a failed post from the SendShort calendar is informational but not needed to invoke this tool, so it is minor dead weight.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (status, published_at) and the sort order, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. The only gap is the absence of any max-result or pagination cue, plus no explicit sibling routing.

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 baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by clarifying the actual semantics of include_past – not just 'include published posts' but specifically posts published in the last 30 days, which bounds the result set in a way the schema does not.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the user's scheduled short and slideshow posts') and adds scope details (ordering, status values). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_shorts or list_slideshows, leaving the agent to infer that this is the scheduled-queue view rather than a content library.

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: it's the tool for seeing what's queued, and include_past is framed as an opt-in for published posts. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_shorts/list_slideshows, and the mention of retrying from the SendShort calendar is tangential rather than a routing rule.

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