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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds important semantic context beyond those annotations: records represent scheduling/planning metadata, not actual published content. This prevents an agent from conflating scheduled status with publish status, which is valuable behavioral context.

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, no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. The clarifying caveat earns its place and does not repeat what annotations already state.

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 list tool with two optional simple parameters, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is listed, optional boundaries, and the planning-not-publishing distinction. There is no output schema, so a little more detail about the returned shape or default date handling could help, but this is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity and rich annotations.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does partially by calling start and end 'optional ISO-8601 boundaries.' However, it does not clarify boundary inclusivity/exclusivity, timezone handling, or what happens when boundaries are omitted. The format is established, but the semantic details are still thin.

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 action ('List'), a specific resource ('scheduled owned content'), and a clear scope (optional ISO-8601 boundaries). The second sentence clarifies that this is planning metadata, not publishing, which helps distinguish it from content publishing tools and from generic list_content_assets. Name and title match, and the description adds enough semantic precision to stand apart.

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?

The description implies the primary use case: retrieving scheduled owned content, optionally filtered by a date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_content_assets or get_content_asset, nor does it state when to choose one over the other. The 'planning metadata, not publishing' clarification gives some exclusion guidance but not enough for fully confident sibling routing.

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