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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by disclosing pagination (50 rows per page with has_more) and ordering by date. No contradictions with annotations; these details are not present in 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential details (defaults, pagination, website_id). It is concise, though a minor typo ('60Returns') slightly detracts from polish.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers pagination, ordering, defaults, and the website_id condition, which is sufficient for a read-only tool with four optional parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description's note about website_id (pass when account has several websites) largely echoes the schema description for that parameter, adding no significant new meaning. Defaults are also restated from 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists the content calendar of a website, specifically articles scheduled for generation, with a row per day slot ordered by date. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_articles and schedule_article, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (viewing scheduled articles) and gives a specific parameter guideline (pass website_id for multi-website accounts). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, falling short of the highest bar.

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