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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about what is read (approved posts and their statuses) and explicitly states 'Nothing is changed by this tool', reinforcing the read-only nature. It also discloses that it includes published links and failure reasons, adding value beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with what it does, followed by when to use it. Every word adds value; no repetition of schema or annotations, and no fluff.

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?

Given the simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides necessary context: it lists possible states, explains that published includes link and failed includes reason, and clarifies it's read-only. It does not mention pagination beyond 'newest first' which is already in schema, but this is sufficient for its complexity.

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?

The schema description covers the only parameter 'state' fully with an enum and explanation including 'Omit for the whole queue, newest first'. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline given 100% schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reads the publishing queue with specific states (waiting, going up, published, failed, cancelled) and includes details like links and failure reasons. It uses a specific verb 'Read' and resource 'publishing queue', distinguishing it from sibling tools like retry_scheduled_post or cancel_scheduled_post.

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?

It explicitly says to call it when the user asks 'did my post go out?' or 'why not?', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes that nothing is changed and new posts cannot be scheduled here, which differentiates it from other tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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