postifys_cq_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns aggregated tables/jobs/hints, requires an environment flag and entitlement, and includes platform caveats (TikTok, LinkedIn, Pinterest). It does not explicitly state 'read-only/no side effects,' but the overview nature plus 'Returns' makes this adequately transparent.

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 definition is front-loaded but bloated: pricing details, upload workflow, and raw URL warnings are unrelated to an overview call and should live on publish/media tools. Roughly half the sentences earn their place; the rest dilute the description.

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, no-output-schema overview tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the returned information, prerequisites, and relevant platform constraints. A short 'does not modify data' statement would make it fully complete, but the behavior is inferable from 'Returns.'

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 accepts zero parameters and has 100% schema coverage by virtue of an empty schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameters for the description to clarify.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Native Postifys Content Queue') and a high-level result ('Returns tables, jobs, and next-run hints'), and contrasts it with 'scheduler without n8n.' It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this aggregate overview from sibling list tools such as cq_list_tables or cq_list_jobs.

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 prerequisites ('Requires CONTENT_QUEUE_ENABLED on the server and publish entitlement') but never states when to choose this tool over the sibling CQ listing tools, nor does it name any alternatives. The publishing workflow guidance belongs to other tools and does not help select cq_overview.

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