List scheduled and past posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces read-only behavior with 'Read-only, 0 credits.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the per-channel outcome reporting ('Each fired item reports PER-CHANNEL outcomes'), which tells the agent exactly how results are structured and avoids a misleading single verdict. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial behavioral detail (per-channel outcomes) plus a cost note. Every word earns its place, with no fluff. Front-loaded and 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 simple, parameterless listing tool, the description covers the key purpose and the most important nuance (per-channel outcomes). It also mentions read-only and 0 credits. However, it omits potential details like pagination, date ranges, or whether all items are included, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, these are not critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 states the tool's scope: 'Show what is queued to post and what already went out.' It uses a specific verb (show) and resource (scheduled and past posts). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling list_published_posts, which might overlap with 'what already went out', so an agent may not know which to pick without further investigation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_published_posts, schedule_post, or cancel_scheduled. It does not state when not to use it or mention any exclusions. The only hint is the implicit purpose, but that is not sufficient for an agent to confidently choose this tool over siblings.

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