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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are ordered soonest-first and expressed in the workspace timezone, and the first slot is the one consumed by queue-mode posting.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core definition front-loaded and the usage hint second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates reasonably by specifying ordering and timezone, but it never says the return is a list of datetime strings or what format they take. It also omits the count cap of 10, which an agent could otherwise only learn from the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'count' parameter is documented there with a default and 1–10 bounds. The description says nothing about count, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; 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+resource: returns the next free times in the workspace's posting queue, soonest first, in the workspace timezone. That is clearly distinct from list_posts or get_schedule, though it never explicitly separates itself from the adjacent get_best_times, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

Gives concrete downstream instructions: pass a returned slot as scheduled_at, or let create_post with when="queue" take the first one automatically. It stops short of exclusions — it never says when to prefer get_best_times or get_schedule instead.

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