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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the tool is owner-scoped, requires npub proof, and returns different data based on user role. It also describes the return structure and auth requirement ('Free; npub proof required'). No contradictory information.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. It explains the tool's purpose, use case, scope rules, and return format. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in places. Overall, it is concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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 is nearly complete for a read tool with three parameters and no output schema. It explains what the tool does, who can use it, what data is returned, and auth requirements. Sibling tool comparison is absent but not critical given the clear purpose.

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?

The schema already covers two of three parameters with descriptions (npub and limit). The description adds context about how npub determines scope but does not elaborate on dpop_token. Given 67% schema coverage, the description provides marginal additional value beyond 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 reads 'recent scheduler-tick outcomes' from 'process_scheduled_posts' runs, distinguishing it from siblings like excalibur_process_scheduled_posts and excalibur_scheduler_status. It specifies the output is for debugging and shows heartbeat per tick and per-post outcomes.

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 explains when to use the tool (to debug worker behavior) and what it shows. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context signals and sibling list provide implicit guidance. The scope differentiation (owner vs other patrons) is clearly stated.

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