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

Annotations already cover readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is free. The description nonetheless adds real behavior: results are newest-first and capped at 100, and the call is free (no credit cost). It omits pagination behavior beyond the cap, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with verb and scope, followed by the filter contract and the cost note. No filler or repetition of structured fields.

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?

For a two-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies ordering, cap, filter semantics, and cost — enough to call it correctly. Return-field shape is left unstated, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 both params are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by expanding what 'upcoming' actually includes (scheduled/publishing/draft) and confirming that omitting status returns everything.

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 (list) and resource (connected-account posts) and scopes it to the queue/calendar view, which implicitly separates it from siblings like list_managed_posts and get_social_post. The ordering ('newest first') and cap ('max 100') further pin down what this tool returns.

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?

Clear context for use: it is the list view for the queue/calendar, filters are optional, and 'omit for all' is spelled out. It does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g. get_social_post for a single post) or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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