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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations, especially the pagination rule ('follow nextCursor with unchanged filters') and compatibility-oriented approval-field opt-in.

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 compact sentences front-load the core read/range operation, then cover filters, pagination, and approval opt-in without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 9-parameter read tool with strong safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential date range, filtering, and pagination behavior. It leaves the limit parameter's role and the return payload shape unaddressed, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 78%, and the schema already documents cursor, channelKey, workspaceId, from/to, and includeApproval semantics. The description restates some of those parameter meanings and omits limit entirely, so it adds limited value beyond the schema.

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 ('Read'), resource ('Agency Workspace calendar'), and scope ('within a UTC date range'), with filters clarifying the operation. It does not explicitly contrast the tool with sibling alternatives such as company_list_posts or company_get_post, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explains optional status/channelKey filtering, cursor continuation with unchanged filters, and includeApproval opt-in behavior. It gives clear usage context but names no alternative tool or when-not condition.

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