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

Annotations cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the consequence that an approved post will publish at the new time, a downstream behavior the annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences plus a short Related line, with the core action and outcome front-loaded. No wasted filler; the trailing Related reference is compact and useful.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the publish consequence and the future-time constraint, leaving little an agent needs that isn't already covered.

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 both postId and scheduledAt (including the future-UTC-ISO constraint). The description's 'new future time' only echoes the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Moves) and resource (a post) with the scope constraint of a new future time, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like save_post or submit_post, though the 'Related' line offers partial 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?

The description implies usage by specifying 'a new future time' and noting the effect on approved posts, but offers no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, nor prerequisites (e.g., must the post already be scheduled). The related-tool references are passing pointers, not conditional guidance.

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