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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds substantial context they can't: timezone is render-only and does not mutate stored data, and it discloses the handoff states (handing_off, stuck with reason and fix, publish_by_hand, publish_now) that appear on cards. This is behavioral detail well beyond structured fields.

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-loads the core payload description before the handoff-state details, and each sentence carries information. It is dense rather than padded, though the handoff discussion is lengthy enough to slightly dilute the primary purpose statement.

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 listing tool with an output schema present, the description need not define return shape; it nonetheless covers scope, timezone behavior, slot semantics, and related tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 three parameters are already documented, including the 'from' legacy alias and the timezone non-mutation note. The description largely reinforces 'week can be any date in it' and repeats the render-only timezone semantics, adding only marginal meaning over 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 ('Shows the publishing calendar') plus the exact scope ('for one week') and enumerates what it returns: scheduled/published posts, open slots with slot ids, and per-channel fill counts. An agent can distinguish this from list_* or get_post siblings without opening a 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 concrete invocation guidance ('Pass week as any date in it'), explains the timezone rendering option, and names related tools (save_post, reschedule_post, update_posting_slots), notably that reschedule_post consumes the slot id this returns. It stops short of explicit when-not-use or alternative-selection rules.

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