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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: it discloses the entitlement requirement (scheduling-enabled plan) and that scheduled items land on the same editorial calendar the dashboard shows. It does not address duplicate-schedule behavior, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 sentences with no filler; the core action and scope come first and the prerequisite follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action and the plan prerequisite but omits what happens on duplicate scheduling, what the caller gets back, and the draft-vs-publish consequence. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 5-parameter write operation.

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 only 40% schema description coverage, the description carries extra burden: it conveys that 'topic' is the subject to generate and that 'scheduledFor' must be a future date/time, reinforcing the schema. However, it says nothing about 'dualLanguage' or how 'publishStatus' (draft vs publish, default publish) changes the outcome, leaving two of five parameters to the bare 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 ('Schedule a topic to be generated and auto-published at a future date/time on a WordPress site') and scopes it to the future, which implicitly separates it from generate_article and publish_article. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Provides a real prerequisite ('Requires a plan with scheduling enabled') that tells the agent when the call will succeed. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over generate_article or publish_article, so the usage context is only implied by the word 'future'.

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