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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: content is sorted by time, includes open slots and per-channel fill counts, and times are in the workspace timezone.

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 purpose followed by input convention and related tools. No filler; every sentence carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a read-only, zero-required-parameter calendar tool, the description covers purpose, scope, input convention, timezone, and related tools completely.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description restates the week/date convention and adds the timezone detail, but it never mentions the 'from' alias parameter, so it adds only marginal semantics.

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 the response contains. An agent can immediately distinguish it from get_post or search_posts.

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?

Points to related tools (save_post, reschedule_post) and explains the input convention (pass any date in the week), implying a planning/scheduling use case. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' exclusion, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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