List recurring schedules

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by enumerating the returned fields and noting that schedules also appear in the Repeat Posts page and Calendar. This helps an agent know exactly what to expect from the call.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the return payload, and the web-app/usage context. 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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the scope, the returned fields, and the context in which to use it. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still clarifies that the operation lists 'all' schedules, which is useful given the absence of filters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recurring post schedules'), and clearly differentiates this from schedule mutation tools like create_schedule, update_schedule, and delete_schedule. It also specifies the exact fields returned, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 gives an explicit invocation context: 'Use this when the user wants their recurring posting schedules.' It also adds helpful context about the web app equivalents. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases or name alternative tools, but for a straightforward read-only list this is adequate.

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