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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: postedAt is the planned calendar day and null means unscheduled, limit defaults to 50 with a max of 100, and full scripts are excluded from results.

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 return shape, then filters, then pagination – a logical order with no filler sentences. The first sentence is dense, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned fields is essential and it delivers, plus filter values, date formats, pagination bounds, and the unscheduled-null semantics. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 9 params, the description carries the load and mostly succeeds: it supplies status values (idea|draft|edited|posted), platform, mediaType, from/to date formats, search matching rules, and pagination defaults/max. Only brandId goes unmentioned, which is a minor 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 (list the brand's content cards) and immediately scopes what is returned: summaries of board + calendar cards with an enumerated field list. It also carves out what it is not ('Does not include the full script'), which separates it from get_content.

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 through the field/filter enumeration and the 'does not include the full script' note, which hints that get_content is the fuller alternative, but the sibling is never named and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance against list_carousel_posts, get_calendar, or list_video_projects.

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