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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation it discloses useful behavioral details: the workspace scoping, that each entry carries the channel id, the time zone the times are in, and whether the caller is permitted to change the schedule. It does not cover response shape (e.g. list vs map keyed by channel) or ordering, which leaves some ambiguity.

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?

One dense sentence leads with the resource and payload contents, then the sequencing rule, then the read-only marker. Every clause carries information, though the field enumeration is slightly list-like and could be tightened.

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 read-only, one-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, returned fields, ordering precondition and safety. The only omissions are response structure and how the platform filter interacts with the returned channel list.

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 single optional platform parameter has full schema description coverage plus an enum, so the schema does the work. The description never mentions the platform filter, adding nothing beyond what the schema already states, which places it at the baseline.

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 weekly posting schedule (queue times) of each channel on this workspace') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what data it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_queue_slots or list_scheduled_posts, which are the most likely confusions.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Call this before add_queue_times or remove_queue_times', naming concrete alternatives and the ordering that selects them. It stops short of saying when this is the wrong tool versus get_queue_slots or list_scheduled_posts, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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