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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it explains what each state means, that successes include a link and failures include a plain-language reason, and that nothing is mutated and scheduling is out of scope for this tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the usage triggers. Every clause earns its place: the state list, the example questions, and the scope boundary each carry distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does so well by enumerating states and what each includes. Ordering and default scope are left to the schema, and there is no mention of result volume or pagination, a minor gap for a queue-listing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'state' parameter, including the enum values and the 'omit for whole queue, newest first' behavior, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description loosely maps its listed states to the enum but adds no filtering syntax or format detail beyond what is already structured.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read' the publishing queue) and enumerates the exact outcome states it reports (waiting, publishing, published with link, failed with reason, cancelled). An agent can distinguish this read-only queue view from mutation siblings like cancel_scheduled_post or retry_scheduled_post without opening any schema.

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 gives concrete invocation triggers ('did my post go out?', 'why not?') and a clear exclusion ('new posts cannot be scheduled from here'), which steers the agent away from incorrectly using it for creation. It stops short of naming the sibling tools that would handle those other jobs, so it is a strong 4 rather than a full 5.

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