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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the description only needs to add content-level context — and it does describe the returned subject matter (unscheduled items that will be missed, posts needing the artist). It adds no auth/permission or roster-scoping behavior, and the unexplained 'last_week' clause muddies rather than clarifies.

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 sprawling sentence with nested clauses, a mid-sentence colon introducing an unrelated subject, and no front-loaded summary of the return shape. The second half is disproportionate to its informational value and is the least coherent part.

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 and read-only annotations, the description correctly assumes the burden of explaining what comes back, and the forward-looking portion does that acceptably. However, the trailing retrospective description is not backed by any parameter or option, so the agent cannot tell whether that data is always returned, conditionally returned, or unreachable.

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%, so the schema already documents both `days` and `artist` — but the description never mentions either, and instead names a `last_week` control that does not exist in the schema. That dangling reference actively misleads about how the call can be parameterized, dropping it below the 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 first clause does identify a specific resource and scope: upcoming posts across every campaign plus the gaps not yet scheduled. But the second half pivots to a 'last_week:' block describing retrospective analytics, which reads like a leftover mode flag rather than part of this tool's purpose, leaving the agent unsure whether this is a forward-looking schedule view or a results digest.

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 statement of when to call this versus promo_results, get_campaign, list_campaigns, or list_todos, even though several siblings overlap on campaign/post data. The only implicit cue is the 'next days' framing; nothing tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice.

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