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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add what they cannot: that results are scoped to the signed-in user and that entries are short summaries rather than full records. It also enumerates the fields returned (title, type, episode vs. supporting, platforms, publish date, status, media summary), which meaningfully tells the agent what to expect.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core list operation and followed by the escalation path to get-content-schedule. The middle field enumeration is long but earns its place since there is no output schema; nothing is redundant.

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 carries the burden of describing return shape and does so adequately, including the summary-vs-full distinction. Minor gap: it does not mention pagination defaults or result ordering despite page/per_page parameters existing.

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%, so all five parameters including page, per_page, search, script, and script_id are already documented. The description only gestures at the script filter ('narrowed to a single script by name') and adds nothing about pagination or search, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List the posts on the signed-in user's content calendar') plus the scope modifier (with or without a script). It also explicitly separates this from get-content-schedule, so an agent can distinguish the list operation from the single-item fetch without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get-content-schedule when a full record is needed, and names the narrowing condition ('by script name'). It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g., when the user wants series or ideas rather than calendar posts), so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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