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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: it joins ScheduledPost with PostGroup, injects content preview and channelName, caps results at `limit`, and orders by scheduledAt ascending.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core definition and followed by join/return behavior. Only minor redundancy in re-stating 'scheduled' twice.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return shapes, and annotations handle the safety profile. The join/ordering/cap details make it largely complete, with the sole gap being the unexplained `from` filter.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It explains `limit` behavior (caps returned rows) but says nothing about `from`, leaving the date-time filter's semantics (inclusive? on scheduledAt?) entirely undefined for the caller.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (scheduled posts) and immediately disambiguates with the parenthetical '(queued for publish, not yet sent)', which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_drafts and search_posts.

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 implies usage context by noting the caller can 'filter by handle client-side', which signals this tool does not filter by channel, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over list_drafts, get_post, or search_posts, nor any prerequisites.

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