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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description reveals concrete query behavior: it joins ScheduledPost with PostGroup, includes content preview and channelName, enforces an upper bound via limit, and orders results by scheduledAt ascending. It also discloses that handle filtering is left to the caller client-side.

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 sentences with no filler. The core definition comes first, followed by join/return details and ordering, all of which earn their place.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior, ordering, and limit. The single notable omission is the `from` parameter's semantics, so it is not fully 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only clarifies `limit` ('Returns up to limit posts'); the `from` datetime parameter is never explained, leaving its filtering semantics ambiguous.

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 opens with the verb 'List' and a specific resource: 'scheduled (queued for publish, not yet sent) posts.' It further distinguishes the tool by describing the join with PostGroup, content preview, and channelName, so an agent can tell this from list_drafts or get_publish_status.

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 gives clear context: this is for posts queued but not yet sent, and it notes the client-side filtering use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, 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.