Content calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reports grouped-by-week data, past cadence, stale drafts, and gaps. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the analytical nature of the tool without contradicting them.

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 purpose and then the reporting dimensions. No redundant phrases or filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 view tool with no output schema, it sufficiently describes the major output categories (scheduled, cadence, stale, gaps). It does not specify the exact data structure or how results are presented (e.g., per-week breakdown vs totals), but given the tool's nature and the lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete. Slightly more detail on return format would push it to 5.

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 all parameters have individual descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining how the parameters relate to the output (e.g., 'gaps against a target posts-per-week' ties to target_per_week, 'stale drafts not touched in N days' ties to stale_draft_days). It integrates the parameters into a coherent narrative, adding value over the schema alone.

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 ('grouped by ISO week'), resource ('content calendar'), and scope ('scheduled future content', 'publishing cadence', 'stale drafts', 'gaps'). Clearly distinguishable from individual content tools like list_content or get_content, as it is an aggregate view.

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 a clear context: 'Useful for content teams planning what to publish next.' This implies it is for high-level planning rather than individual item operations, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it. The context is present but lacks explicit exclusions.

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