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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing a computed, live field: schedule_check reflects 'exactly what Audora's Schedule would decide about it now' rather than stored data, plus it surfaces 'what it still needs'.

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 leads with the resource and then enumerates the returned fields, with no filler. It is dense with product jargon ('lane', 'Promo's calendar', 'Audora's Schedule'), which costs a little readability but not length.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return shape (posts by day and lane, words, hashtags, media, status, schedule_check) and it does so thoroughly for a two-parameter read tool. Auth/connection semantics are left to the schema descriptions, which is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, with campaign_id and the label-only artist parameter both fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or conditional guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific resource and scope: one campaign rendered as a calendar of every post by day and lane with its content and status. That is enough to distinguish it from list_campaigns, though the 'Promo's calendar' / 'Audora's Schedule' framing is branded jargon rather than a plain verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The only routing hint ('From list_campaigns') lives in the schema, not the description, so the agent must infer that this is the detail fetch following the list tool.

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