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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real domain behavior instead of repeating that. It explains what each status means operationally, including that 'queued' is still cancellable, 'posted' carries a url, and 'offered' means nothing went out because the summary was short — context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 scope and default are front-loaded, and the parenthetical status glossary is information-dense rather than filler. The single long sentence with nested parentheses is somewhat clunky to parse, which keeps it from a 5, but every clause carries meaning.

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 no output schema, the description does much of the return-value work by listing the status values and the fields associated with them (post_at, url). It does not mention ordering or result limits, but for a one-parameter, non-paginated list tool this is close to complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the YYYY-MM-DD format and user timezone. The description adds the default value ('default today'), which the schema does not state, so it contributes a small but genuine increment beyond structured data.

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 names the exact resource (automatic WIP todos for a day) and its origin (a session or move on a project marked public), then enumerates the possible statuses. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_wip_projects, add_post, edit_auto_post, and get_post_draft.

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?

It states the default scope ('a day, default today') and clarifies that it 'Posts nothing', which implies a read-only inspection use case. However, it never names an alternative tool or says when to prefer this over list_wip_projects or get_post_draft, so routing guidance is only implied.

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