List calendar

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, closed read, and the description adds a real behavioral trait beyond them: the response gains a notes field only when both from and to are supplied. It does not explain the effect of limit or default ordering, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence names the two filtering modes before the parenthetical asides, so nothing important is buried. The nested parentheses make it dense but every clause carries information.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers date semantics, status values, and the conditional notes field, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing are limit/pagination behavior and default result ordering, the main remaining gaps.

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 50%; from/to are well documented in the schema. The description compensates for the undocumented status parameter by enumerating all seven values, which the schema does not, but it says nothing about the limit parameter, leaving one of four parameters unaddressed.

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 the specific resource (scheduled posts) and the two filtering modes (date range or status), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It references the sibling postfjord_list_calendar_notes only to explain where notes come from, not to draw a usage boundary, so differentiation is only partial.

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 condition 'with both from and to' is given for the enriched notes result, which implies usage, but there is no explicit when-not or 'use X instead' routing against list_calendar_notes or other list tools. The agent must infer that this tool covers posts and the other covers notes only.

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