Read a site's editorial calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully enumerates what the calendar contains (imported slots, in-preparation/planned/published content, upcoming autopilot runs), which hints at a read-only operation, but it never states permissions, pagination, volume limits, or whether the returned data is cached/live.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that moves from the operation to the scope to the contents of the response. It is dense but every clause carries information; only the trailing enumeration of content states feels slightly list-like.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source describing the payload, and it does list the content categories returned. It stops short of describing the shape of those entries or whether results are grouped by day/slot, which leaves a modest gap.

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 100%, so siteId, from, and to are already fully documented in the schema, including the ISO 8601 format and the 366-day cap. The description only gestures at 'une période' and adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Lit') and resource ('calendrier éditorial LightSpot d'un site'), and it scopes the operation to a period. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling create_editorial_calendar, but 'Lit' vs 'create' makes the distinction inferable.

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 only implied: an agent can gather this is the read side of the calendar pair, but there is no statement of when to prefer it, what prerequisites exist (e.g. site access), or what to do instead when the calendar must be modified.

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