List scheduled posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining held_reason semantics and giving example values such as content_rules_violated and publish_result_unknown.

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 two focused sentences with the core listing behavior and use cases front-loaded. Every sentence contributes relevant selection or interpretation information without padding.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it identifies the resource, optional filter, relevant returned fields, and the main user intents. Safety and idempotency are covered by annotations.

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 the account_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description repeats that filtering is optional but adds no syntax, format, or behavioral detail beyond the structured field.

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 uses a specific verb ("Lists") and resource ("scheduled posts"), states the optional account_id filter, and names returned fields including status, publish_at, and held_reason. It clearly distinguishes the operation from creation or cancellation siblings by framing it as a listing tool.

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?

It gives clear triggering contexts: "when the user asks what is coming up or why a post did not go out." It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as cancel_schedule or schedule_text, but the usage scenario is concrete enough for selection.

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