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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the description earns credit for the extra rules it adds: times are read in the event's timezone, timezone-designated datetimes are rejected outright, and null clears the schedule. The rejection rule is a real failure mode an agent would otherwise hit. It does not cover permission requirements or error behavior beyond that.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, the schedule/unschedule switch, and the timezone pitfall. The most error-prone detail is front-loaded in the sentence an agent reads before constructing the call.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering the safety and idempotency profile, and full parameter descriptions, the only thing the description needed to add was the datetime format trap, and it does so explicitly. Nothing required to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the property descriptions already spell out the local-datetime format and the null-to-remove behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same semantics in prose, adding only the explicit 'rejected' consequence for tz-aware values, which justifies the baseline 3 rather than higher.

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 opens with a specific verb set and resource: schedule/reschedule/unschedule a future publish or close action on a survey. That is far more precise than the tautological title. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like publish_survey, close_survey, or update_poll_schedule.

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 clearly states the mechanics of both modes: pass a future datetime to schedule, pass null to remove the schedule. The 'future' constraint gives a firm boundary. It stops short of saying when to use this versus calling publish_survey/close_survey immediately, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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