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

Annotations already cover the safe, read-only, idempotent profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: times are in the organization time zone, an unscoped connection spans every workspace, and per-network duplicates are collapsed into one row with postIds enumerating them. Since there is no output schema, disclosing the shape of `files` and `postIds` is genuinely additive rather than redundant.

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?

The first sentence is well front-loaded and carries the core answer. The remainder is a sequence of loosely connected asides — a note about a shared folder link and a field-level explanation of `files` — that read as reference notes rather than prioritized guidance, so density comes at some cost to scanability.

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 two-parameter read-only list with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: what appears on the agenda, the time horizon semantics, timezone, cross-network merging, and workspace scoping. What it leaves thin is the relationship to the get/update/delete_agenda_item siblings, which an agent picking among agenda tools would want.

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 both parameters (days, workspaceId) are already documented with types and defaults, which sets the baseline at 3. The closing line restates the unscoped-connection consequence the schema already gives for workspaceId, and no extra meaning is added for `days` beyond the 1-60 range the schema carries.

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?

States precisely what is returned: scheduled posts, dated drafts, posts awaiting approval, tasks and meetings, over a forward-looking window. The content set is unambiguous. What it lacks is differentiation from other list_* siblings (e.g. list_library_posts) — it only names list_library_media, and only to redirect where attached files live.

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 rather than stated: 'everything that goes out from now on ... for the next days' tells the agent this is a forward-looking agenda rather than a history or archive. The one explicit cross-reference ('they are in that client library: list_library_media') usefully redirects a sub-query. There is no when-not guidance and no contrast with get_agenda_item or other listing tools.

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