Optimal posting times

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the data source ('historical performance') and the advisory nature ('suggested'), which is valuable beyond the annotations. The 'CAPABILITY: read' note is redundant but consistent, with no contradictions.

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 description is a single concise sentence plus a capability note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes no extraneous information, making it highly efficient.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it returns and the basis for the suggestions. It lacks explicit usage context, but that is more relevant to the usage guidelines dimension and does not undermine overall completeness for selecting the tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain them. Schema coverage is 100% vacuously, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing suggested best posting times based on historical performance. It specifies a distinct resource and scope, though the verb is implied by the tool name rather than stated. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the resource is specific enough.

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?

The description implies the tool is useful for identifying optimal posting moments but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like scheduling or metrics tools. There are no exclusions or direct references to sibling tools, making the usage context somewhat implied.

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