Schedule company post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds 'future date/time' which overlaps with the schema's scheduled_at_iso description. No additional behavioral context (e.g., scheduling constraints, editability after scheduling) is given beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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, well-formed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and time qualifier, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, presence of an output schema, and comprehensive param descriptions, the description is largely sufficient. It conveys the core behavior (scheduling) without needing to explain return values. A slight gap is the lack of workflow context (e.g., that this is for scheduling rather than immediate posting), which is inferred from the name.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including detailed constraints for scheduled_at_iso (10-minute minimum, 3-month maximum). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Publish a post at a future date/time.' clearly identifies the action (publish) and resource (post) with a specific temporal qualifier. It distinguishes from immediate posting tools like company_create_post by the 'future' aspect, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'future date/time' phrasing implies scheduling usage, but there is no explicit instruction, exclusion, or comparison with company_create_post or company_list_scheduled. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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