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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that slots are returned in the organization's timezone and are intended as scheduling input, but says nothing about format or limits beyond that.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the actionable use case. No filler or redundancy.

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, two-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys what is returned and how to consume it. Complete enough to call correctly, with only return-shape details left unspecified.

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 the schema already documents `count` (default 5) and the `workspaceId` fallback rules. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format meaning beyond this, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 a specific resource ('next free slots in the organization's posting queue') and implicitly the verb (suggest). An agent can grasp the intent, but the description does not explicitly distinguish it from similar siblings like get_posting_queue or get_best_times.

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?

Gives concrete usage: pass the slots as `scheduledFor` to spread content out instead of clustering posts in one hour. This is clear when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., vs get_best_times).

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