get_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default return fields (id+status+scheduledAt), the effect of detail levels, and the 'sorted by date' behavior. This is good transparency for a read-only view tool, though it doesn't mention potential edge cases like empty lists, timezone handling, or rate limits.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It leads with the primary purpose, then states return behavior, then gives the alternative. This is an optimally concise structure for a simple getter tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values—and it does, by specifying default fields and detail-level verbosity. It also covers the main differentiation from get_post. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that the 'days' parameter controls the horizon, though that is in the schema. Given the simplicity and solid schema coverage, this is mostly complete.

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 schema describes all 3 parameters (days, detail, brandId) with detailed descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The tool description itself only reinforces the 'detail' parameter behavior, adding minimal value beyond the schema. Since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('View') with a clear resource ('upcoming scheduled posts') and a distinguishing feature ('sorted by date'). It explicitly differentiates from get_post ('For a single post use get_post'), so the agent knows exactly what scope this tool covers.

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 provides an explicit alternative: 'For a single post use get_post.' It implies that this tool is for viewing lists of scheduled posts, which is clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other list-oriented siblings (e.g., list_posts), though the 'scheduled' and 'sorted by date' framing offers decent guidance.

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