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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (recycle plan, approval state), but does not go beyond annotations in disclosing behavior such as auth requirements or response format.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. The inclusion of 'Public API preview' adds context but is minor. 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 read-only tool with good annotations, the description is adequate but lacks detail on the return structure (no output schema). It mentions key fields but does not cover all response aspects. Given the parameter count and schema coverage gaps, it could be more 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 description coverage is 50% (only 'query' and 'workspace_id' have descriptions). The tool description does not describe any parameters, leaving the agent without clarification for 'id', 'query', 'brand_id', or 'workspace_id' beyond schema. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 HTTP method (GET), resource (scheduled post), and the specific data returned (recycle plan, approval state). It distinguishes from sibling tools like aidelly_list_scheduled_posts (list vs. single) and aidelly_get_post (different resource type).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it is a 'Public API preview' but does not provide context for when to choose this over other read tools like aidelly_get_post or aidelly_list_scheduled_posts.

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