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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the copy is independent, a genuinely new post, and publishes even where the original already did. These details go beyond the annotations and clarify side effects, though it doesn't cover every potential caveat (e.g., permissions, rate limits).

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 five sentences long but each provides essential information: purpose, attributes copied and overridable, scheduling options, independence of the copy, and the alternative tool. It is well-structured with the most critical details front-loaded, though slightly verbose. For a tool with 18 parameters, this length is justified.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral guarantees, overrides, scheduling options, and alternatives. It uses the schema description for parameter details (e.g., id from list_scheduled) and the output is not schema-defined, so return value is not explained but acceptable. Given the tool's complexity, it is nearly complete, with minor gaps like prerequisites or error handling.

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 72%, so most parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that any of the copied fields (caption, media, etc.) can be overridden in the same call, which explains the role of override parameters like `message`, `title`, etc. This is helpful beyond the schema's individual field descriptions, though it doesn't elaborate on all 18 parameters.

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 verb (copy) and the resource (a scheduled or published post into a new queued post). It differentiates from retry_scheduled by specifying that this tool duplicates posts while retry_scheduled re-fires failed channels. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (run a creative again, reuse a post, re-send after it went out) and provides a clear exclusion: 'To re-fire only the channels that FAILED, use retry_scheduled instead.' It also explains the `at` and `useQueue` options for scheduling, giving agents context on how to invoke it appropriately.

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