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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by enumerating the outcome states surfaced (pending, scheduled, partial, failed, published), which tells the agent that failed and partially-completed posts will appear in results. It does not mention ordering or pagination behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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 the resource stated first and the range qualifier second; nothing is padded. The phrase 'publishing receipts' is mildly jargon-y and slightly ambiguous, but the rest of the sentence disambiguates it.

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 a full output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey scope and filtering semantics, which it largely does. The one material omission is what the result set covers when no time range is supplied, plus any ordering or pagination convention.

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%, so both from/to parameters are already documented with format and meaning in the schema. The description only restates the optional time-range filter without adding syntax, offset, or inclusivity details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read the linked account's content calendar and publishing receipts.' The added clause about included outcomes makes the scope of the listing concrete rather than just restating the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling listing tools (list_assets, list_videos, list_versions), though the resource is clear enough to disambiguate in practice.

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?

'Optionally within a time range' implies when the from/to filters are relevant, which gives partial usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance and no statement about what happens when the range is omitted (default window vs. all history), so a calling agent must infer the default behavior.

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