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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that results span past and future slots, but says nothing about ordering or how the default limit of 50 affects the view.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler. The resource and scope come first, the usage rule second, so an agent gets the essential information immediately.

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-parameter read-only listing with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is how results are bounded and ordered, which could matter when queue times get long.

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?

Only siteId carries a schema description (50% coverage); limit is constrained in schema but not explained. The description mentions 'site' only as an output field and adds no filtering or pagination semantics beyond the schema, so it neither compensates nor regresses.

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 scheduled_article slots') and enumerates the returned fields (topic, target date, status, site), including the past/future scope. This separates it cleanly from the sibling list_articles, which is a different resource.

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 an explicit call-site rule: use this before schedule_article to see what's queued and avoid duplicate dates/topics. It does not, however, say when to prefer it over list_articles or note that past slots are included for historical checking.

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