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

Annotations already flag the operation as a non-readOnly, destructive, open-world write. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the future-date constraint and the authorization detail that company-page drafts are re-checked against current page/Premium rights before scheduling. It does not, however, say what happens on failure or whether an already-scheduled draft can be rescheduled.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and platform, followed by the two constraints. 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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, timing constraint, and rights-check behavior. Annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior and rescheduling semantics, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a constraint the schema lacks — the programmingDate must be in the future — which is meaningful semantic value beyond the ISO 8601 format note in the schema.

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 verb+resource ('Schedules a draft') plus the target platform and effect ('automatic publication on LinkedIn at a specific date and time'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_draft, update_draft, and update_post.

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?

Provides real preconditions ('date must be in the future') and a mode-specific caveat about company-page drafts, but never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one (e.g., to publish immediately or edit an existing scheduled draft). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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