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

Annotations only declare the flag profile; the description adds genuinely new behavior: delivery is asynchronous, verification must go through company_get_post, and a lost response requires retrying the identical body and idempotencyKey. Preconditions (draft approval, media completion, current client approval) are also stated, which annotations do not convey. Nothing contradicts the destructive/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler: action first, then prerequisites, then the publish-now exception, then delivery/retry semantics. Every sentence carries operational information an agent needs before calling.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers gating, async delivery, retry safety, and where to confirm the result. The only real gap is that it never indicates what the immediate call returns (e.g., a post ID or a pending status), leaving the agent reliant on company_get_post alone.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in-schema, including the exact UTC ISO format and the identical-key retry rule. The description restates the publish-now time semantics and the retry rule without adding syntax or accepted-value detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource — 'Schedule an Agency post' — plus the gating condition ('after draft approval and an agreed time'). It implicitly separates itself from company_reschedule_post/company_create_post by requiring an approved draft, but never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from tool names alone.

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 prerequisites ('Save edits and finish media first; required client approval must be current') and an explicit branch for the publish-now case. It also routes verification to company_get_post. It stops short of naming when to use company_reschedule_post or company_create_post instead, so the boundary against siblings remains implicit.

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