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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is structured data. The description's useful addition is scope: it publishes 'en todas sus redes', telling the agent the blast radius spans every connected network. It does not mention irreversibility, what happens to the original scheduled slot, or failure handling, which would be valuable for a destructive mutation.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the action and its scope come first, the usage restriction second. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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 destructive, one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what happens and where it happens, but omits what the agent would want before firing: that publishing cannot be undone, whether the scheduled entry is consumed, and what a success/failure response looks like.

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% and the single post_id field already documents its UUID format and provenance ('de list_posts o get_post'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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 action on a specific resource: it advances an already-scheduled publication and publishes it immediately. The 'programada' qualifier implicitly separates it from publish_post/create_and_publish_post, though it never names a sibling to make that distinction explicit.

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?

'Úsala solo cuando el usuario lo pidió' gives a genuine when-to-use guardrail against autonomous publishing. However, it offers no routing guidance versus the obvious alternatives (reschedule_post for moving the slot, publish_post for unscheduled content, cancel_post for aborting), so the agent must infer the boundaries.

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