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

Annotations already establish a safe read, but the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond them: slots are recurring weekly, the read says nothing about which occurrences are occupied, and computing sendAt from them ignores occupancy and Pin Spacing rules. It also discloses the account-selection requirement when multiple accounts exist.

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 primary purpose and then layered with practical constraints. It is longer than average, but most sentences earn their place by preventing specific scheduling errors; there is some repetition around the do-not-schedule-Pins warning that keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Output schema exists, so return value detail is not required. Given the scheduling pitfalls, the description covers the important context: what the tool returns conceptually, what it omits, how it relates to get_schedule, and how to obtain a timeslotId. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents accountId as the numeric ID from list_accounts. The description adds useful semantics by stating that if multiple accounts exist the agent must ask the user rather than choose one, which goes beyond the schema.

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 and resource (lists the account's smart schedule timeslots) and immediately clarifies that each slot is a recurring weekly time rather than a concrete date. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_schedule and from create_post/schedule_post, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance (showing or explaining the recurring schedule), names the alternative for dated occupancy (get_schedule), and identifies itself as the source of the timeslotId needed by update_timeslot and delete_timeslot. It also provides an explicit when-not-to-use path: do not schedule Pins from these slots and do not compute sendAt manually; use useNextOpenSlot with create_post or schedule_post instead.

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