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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: DB-backed and instant (latency), the status enum including failed, and the rationale that a failed post would otherwise be invisible. It stops short of describing pagination or result shape in detail.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence carries load: ordering, returned fields, status values, failure visibility, latency, row cap, and sibling routing. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 no output schema present, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and status vocabulary, and by disclosing ordering and result limits. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and how to interpret the response.

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 100% and the schema already documents limit semantics (default 50, max 200) and the sessionId/sessionLabel account-scoping requirement. The description restates the limit and the returned 'account' field but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 posts), plus the scope (queued and recently published), ordering (latest scheduled time first), and the returned fields (id, account, text, scheduledAt, status). It is readily distinguishable from li_cancel_scheduled_post, li_schedule_post, and li_create_post, which are named 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?

Directly routes the agent: cancel with li_cancel_scheduled_post, queue with li_schedule_post, publish immediately with li_create_post. Each alternative is paired with the action it performs, so the when-to-use decision requires no inference.

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