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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: a hard 62-day-per-call window and the meaning of the may_skip signal. It does not describe overall return shape, ordering, or what happens when a profile has no active campaign.

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 tight sentences, with the resource scoping front-loaded and the range constraint second; nothing is padded. The trailing 'may_skip' clause is slightly abrupt, as that field name is never introduced as part of the response, but it earns its place given there is no output schema.

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, three-parameter preview tool with no output schema, the definition covers the key constraints and one non-obvious response flag. It stops short of explaining the rest of the return payload or the behavior at the 62-day boundary, which leaves a modest gap.

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 67%: 'from' and 'to' already document their defaults, while profile_id carries no description in the schema. The description's 62-day ceiling gives useful meaning to the from/to window but says nothing about profile_id semantics or what happens when the range exceeds the limit.

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 names a specific resource and scope: planned FUTURE dates for a profile's ACTIVE campaigns, explicitly qualified as 'not yet real posts.' That qualification distinguishes it from actual post/listing siblings such as list_posts or get_post_campaign, though it does not name those alternatives directly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'planned future dates' and the 'not yet real posts' framing, which suggests this is for forecasting rather than reading actual posts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use instruction, no named alternative for viewing real posts, and no statement about prerequisites such as campaign existence.

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