suggest_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the substantive behavioral fact that an internal 'smart scheduler' picks optimal times rather than the caller specifying them, but says nothing about determinism, tenant/account scoping, or how many timestamps come back.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the downstream consumer is noted in the second sentence where it is most useful.

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?

With no output schema, the description does supply the essential return contract: concrete timestamps intended for create_post. What is missing is return cardinality and shape (one timestamp per post, ordered?) and any note on platform influence, but for a four-parameter read-only planning tool it is close to sufficient.

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 four parameters are already documented with formats and examples. The description only restates 'N posts' and 'date range' in prose, adding no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: spread N posts across a date range at optimal times, returning concrete timestamps. It also distinguishes itself from the write path by naming create_post as the consumer of its output, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_best_times or bulk_create_posts without opening a schema.

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 handoff to create_post implies this is a planning step that precedes actual scheduling, giving implied usage. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_best_times or get_posting_schedule, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent must infer the choice among similar siblings.

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