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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only framing is redundant. Beyond that, the description says nothing about pagination behavior, filtering constraints, or result scope, adding no behavioral context the annotations don't already supply.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and a front-loaded verb, so there is no wasted prose. However, the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency, given the tool takes eight parameters.

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 need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for an eight-parameter listing tool, the absence of any parameter guidance, filtering semantics, or usage context leaves the definition materially incomplete.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and largely fails. 'Publishing states' faintly gestures at the status enum and 'brand calendar' at the since/until range, but brandId (required), limit, cursor, platform, and connectionId get no mention at all.

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 verb 'Read' plus the resources 'brand calendar, drafts and publishing states' roughly conveys a read-oriented listing of posts, but 'read the brand calendar' is loose phrasing for what the name calls list_posts. It never clarifies that this is a per-brand, filterable, paginated listing, so it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_post or list_campaigns.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer get_post (single post), or how it relates to other listing siblings. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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