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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already covering the safety profile, the description earns credit for disclosing that the result is not merely a listing but a three-way breakdown that flags unscheduled items and items requiring artist action. Since there is no output schema, this return-content semantics is genuinely valuable context beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single sentence and front-loads the primary category ('what goes out in the next days across every campaign'), which is good, but the nested parenthetical and multiple trailing clauses make it dense and harder to parse than it needs to be.

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, zero-required-param reporting tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the caller will learn, including gaps and action-needed items. It is close to complete, with only routing/alternatives missing.

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 100%, so both 'days' (1–14, default 7) and 'artist' (label-vs-artist connection rule) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema fully carries this burden; baseline 3.

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 enumerates what the tool reports: upcoming posts across campaigns, unscheduled items in that window, and overdue items needing the artist. That gives a clear sense of the resource (promo content status across all campaigns), but it lacks a crisp verb+resource framing and never differentiates itself from siblings like promo_results or list_events.

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 guidance, no mention of alternatives such as promo_results, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the title and content buckets.

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