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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return contract ('returns publicationId') and its role as the prerequisite for reschedule/cancel/edit/delete chaining, which annotations cannot express. Pagination behavior is left unstated.

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?

Two tight sentences with the usage trigger front-loaded and zero filler; every clause either scopes the tool or explains why an agent would call it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with seven undocumented parameters and no enum values, an agent cannot tell how to filter by time range, channel, post, or status, leaving the definition only minimally usable for invocation.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden, yet it never mentions from/to, limit, offset, postId, channelId, or the accepted status values. The phrase 'scheduled publications, delivery failures or messages previously published' only vaguely gestures at the status filter and leaves the time-range and scoping filters opaque.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource framing ('inspecting scheduled publications, delivery failures or messages previously published') and the title reinforces it as a calendar read. It is clearly distinct from write siblings like cancel_publication or reschedule_publication, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

'Use when inspecting scheduled publications, delivery failures or messages previously published' states the triggering conditions clearly, and the follow-up sentence implies this is the discovery step before rescheduling, cancellation, editing or deletion. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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