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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'Reads stored evidence without contacting a provider,' plus what the view surfaces (destination, readiness checks, provider receipt state, next action) and the privacy rule for team Articles.

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 dense sentences that front-load the core action and its scope; there is little waste. The phrase 'stored provider receipt state' is jargon-heavy but earns its place as returned-field context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 7-parameter tool with 29% schema coverage and no usage routing, the description leaves an agent guessing about date-range and status filtering.

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 description coverage is only 29%, so the description must carry weight, yet it clarifies only the workspace/writer authorization semantics and says nothing about the from/to date bounds, kind, status, or limit parameters. Five of seven parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 (List) and resource (scheduled items = Notes and Articles), and the phrase 'one bounded schedule view' scopes it. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_scheduled_posts by naming Notes and Articles, but never says so explicitly.

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 explains authorization scope ('workspace and writer scope authorized team Notes') but gives no when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and no routing to siblings like get_scheduled_item_readiness or list_scheduled_posts. The agent must infer its place from the name alone.

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