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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: the post is created now but published later automatically by WordPress. It omits permission/auth requirements and, notably, how the timezone of the ISO 8601 date is interpreted.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines the operation and its scope, the second explains the required input and the resulting behavior. No filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the essential scheduling contract but leaves meaningful gaps: timezone interpretation of the date, the distinction from wp_create_post, and error behavior for past dates. An agent could invoke it correctly, but only by guessing at the sibling routing and date semantics.

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 8 parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds a real constraint beyond the schema: the date must be in the future for scheduling to make sense, which the schema's 'ISO 8601 format' text does not state. It adds nothing about tags/categories/post_type semantics, but those are covered by 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 and resource ('Create a new post or page') plus the distinguishing scope qualifier 'scheduled for future publication', which separates it conceptually from wp_create_post / wp_create_page. However, it never names those siblings or explicitly says how it differs from passing a future date to wp_create_post, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Provide a future date' tells the agent the precondition, and the phrase 'scheduled for future publication' signals when the tool is appropriate. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the immediate-publish alternative (wp_create_post) or the reschedule alternative (wp_update_post), and no note about what happens if the date is in the past.

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