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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real context by enumerating the possible status values and stating results are rendered in the owner's own timezone. It also discloses the 'quick list without pictures' rendering tradeoff. It does not define how the 'week' boundary is computed or how many items come back, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the when-to-use clause, followed by what is returned and the sibling redirect — a sensible order with no filler. The main sentence is long and packs the field list inline, which is dense but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so credibly by naming the fields, statuses and timezone behavior. For a zero-parameter read tool that is nearly sufficient; only the week-boundary definition and result-size expectations are left unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics for the description to supplement and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 resource and scope: what is planned or booked this week, with the exact per-post fields returned (day, time, platforms, status, timezone, Story/extra placements). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_my_posts, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 an explicit trigger condition ('when the signed-in owner asks what's planned or booked this week') and names the alternative to use instead for the richer view ('to see the posts themselves use get_my_posts'). The routing decision between the two list tools is fully determined by the description.

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