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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: pagination ('paged'), the return fields, and the account scoping. It doesn't describe pagination mechanics (e.g., how to know when pages end), but the schema's start/count parameters plus the output schema cover the basics. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the key return fields. No filler, no repetition of the schema. Every word 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 read-only, idempotent list tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the pagination behavior beyond 'paged' (e.g., whether start is an offset into the full list or a cursor), but the schema's start/count descriptions cover the mechanics. An agent can call this tool correctly with the information given.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the account scoping ('for an account') and the return fields, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for count/start. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 description states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('scheduled LinkedIn posts'), and a scope ('for an account, paged'). It also names the return fields (post URNs, text content, scheduled publish times), which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_scheduled_post and update_scheduled_post. The title 'List scheduled posts' reinforces the same meaning without adding ambiguity.

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?

The description implies when to use it: when you need to list scheduled posts for an account, and the account_id parameter is explicitly tied to list_accounts, giving a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling set makes the distinction fairly obvious (delete_scheduled_post, update_scheduled_post, create_post). A small gap: it doesn't mention that this is read-only vs. other mutation tools, but the annotations cover that.

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