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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds useful scope context ('not canceled', soonest-first ordering), but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or truncation behavior for a queue listing.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes the filter set, the exclusion, and the sort order with no wasted words.

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 simple filtered list whose annotations cover the safety profile and where no output schema exists, the description covers scope and ordering adequately. The only minor gap is that return shape and any pagination/limit behavior are left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail because none exist, which is appropriate 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 verb (List) and resource (scheduled posts) and narrows scope to queued/posted/failed while excluding canceled. It distinguishes itself from write siblings like cancel/reschedule/retry, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with list siblings such as clipember_list_clips.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for inspecting the publishing queue, and the status filter and ordering tell the agent what it will see. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., versus get_clip or list_clips).

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