content_calendar

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: each term's five-year rhythm is measured, output is sorted by soonest publishing need, and terms lacking a yearly pattern are flagged as evergreen.

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?

Reasonably short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the text is broken into awkward fragments and the trailing 'lead_weeks' line reads as a dangling note rather than integrated guidance.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, so the description's focus on output semantics and lead_weeks is well placed. However, the three unexplained input parameters (geo, category, property) leave a gap for a five-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 0% for five parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains lead_weeks precisely and implies that keywords is the topic list, but geo, category, and property are left entirely undocumented — most of the parameter surface contributes nothing.

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 states a specific output: a publishing calendar derived from seasonality, giving peak timing and the must-be-live date for up to 8 topics. It is clearly distinguishable from the related 'seasonality' sibling by its publishing-deadline framing, though it never names that sibling to draw the contrast explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the publishing-planning framing and the 'up to 8 topics' limit, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison to alternatives like seasonality or interest_over_time. An agent can infer the scenario but receives no routing guidance.

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