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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it describes the returned data shape ('query booked on each publish day... status'), the default date range, the autopilot workflow ('writes each booked query a day ahead and publishes it on its day'), and an auth requirement ('requires an agent API key'). It stops short of mentioning pagination or rate limits, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return fields, followed by defaults and autopilot context. There is no wasted text; each sentence adds information.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned, default range, autopilot behavior, and auth. It lacks detail on pagination or result limits, which would be needed for full completeness.

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 67%, with 'from' and 'to' already documented in the schema and the description only briefly echoing the default range. The 'siteId' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the gap. Baseline 3.

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 and resource: reading a site's content calendar, and enumerates the returned fields (booked query, brief presence, article status). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_articles or schedule_query, which keeps it from 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?

It provides a default time window ('Defaults to the next two months') and notes the API key requirement, giving implied context for when to use it. However, it does not state when to use this versus list_articles or schedule_query, nor any exclusions.

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