Get best times

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful context by saying the recommendations derive from engagement history and can be scoped per account, but it does not cover freshness, return shape, or limitations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose and optional scoping efficiently.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, this is adequate for selection. However, because there is no output schema, the description could say more about the format and granularity of the returned recommendations.

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?

There is one optional parameter, accountId, with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'optionally per account' signals that account scoping exists, but it does not clarify whether passing accountId returns only that account's recommendations or a per-account breakdown.

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 resource, 'recommended posting times,' and the source, 'engagement history,' with optional per-account scope. It is understandable without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling analytics tools.

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: an agent would call this when it needs recommended posting times based on prior engagement. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over analytics tools or when not to use it.

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