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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It adds the specific statuses covered and the fields returned, which is meaningful. Pagination and ordering are not mentioned, but that is a minor gap given the strong annotation profile.

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?

A single sentence front-loaded with the verb and resource; every clause adds useful detail (statuses, returned fields, optional time range). There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the result fields and statuses and points to the optional filters. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without additional documentation.

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 both parameters are fully documented with their date-time semantics ('Only posts scheduled before this time' / 'at or after this time'). The description's 'Optional from/to' only restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists') with the resource 'the account's scheduled posts' and enumerates the six included statuses, which separates it from sibling tools like get_post_status and cancel_scheduled_post. The returned fields (id, time, platforms, status) further pin down exactly what the operation does.

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 gives clear context: it lists posts across all statuses and mentions the optional from/to filters, so an agent knows when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_post_status), leaving some inference to the agent.

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