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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds genuine context: the post becomes reader-visible immediately or from the scheduled time, and publishing requires editor-level rights while an author's own draft is held for approval. It does not say what happens if the post is already published or how to undo it.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with scope then behavior then permissions, with no filler. The opening clause about the site slightly duplicates what `site`'s schema description already states, costing a bit of space.

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 three-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the effect on readers, scheduling semantics, and authorization requirements. Missing pieces are edge-case behavior (already-published posts, failure modes) and any hint of the response.

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?

Beyond the 67%-covered schema, the description explains that `at` is ISO 8601 and that a bare time is interpreted in the site's timezone — a genuine semantic addition the schema lacks. The required `post_id` is left entirely undocumented, which is the main gap.

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 ("Publishes a draft", with the alternative "schedules it for `at`") and scopes it to a single site named in `site`. The publish/unpublish distinction is unambiguous against siblings such as unpublish_post, edit_post, and create_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 gives a real when-to-use condition for the two modes (omit `at` to publish now, supply `at` to schedule) and a permission gate: "Editors and above; an author's draft waits for one." It stops short of explicitly routing to alternatives such as unpublish_post for reversal or edit_post for content changes.

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