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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely non-structural behavioral fact: the call requires the "Publish" permission on the plan, which an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations. It stops short of describing the returned shape (no output schema exists).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the resource is, then sibling routing, then the permission prerequisite. No filler and no restatement of the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers resource identity, sibling boundaries, and an auth prerequisite. The remaining gap is that it never characterizes the return value (fields, whether slots include weekday/time/timezone), which matters slightly more given there is no output schema.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage (including provenance via `linkedin_account_list`), the schema carries the parameter burden and the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the exact resource returned — the recurring weekly publishing slots for an account — and explicitly contrasts it with the queue ('the repeating timetable, not the queue'). An agent can distinguish it from post_list and from its two write siblings without opening a schema, though the verb 'get/return' is only implied by the noun phrase.

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 names the alternatives and the condition that selects each: post_list for the posts themselves, post_schedule_set for changing slots, post_schedule_settings for timezone/approval rules. That is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use routing across all three adjacent tools.

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