fc scheduled posts

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: pagination, soonest-first ordering, a Pro-plus-permission gate, and a clarification that this is a read of scheduled items rather than a scheduling action.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by routing and requirement notes. The controller/route-source line is developer-facing metadata rather than agent-facing guidance, but it is compact and not misleading.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and gating. The remaining gap is the return shape (fields per post, how pagination is advanced given no page parameter), which an agent must discover empirically.

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 schema already explains both account and user_id, including the $currentUserId default. The description only implies the member scoping via 'one member' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (Returns), resource (posts scheduled but not yet published), scope (one member), and ordering (soonest first), which is enough to distinguish it from every sibling in the fc_* family.

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 states a prerequisite (requires FluentCommunity Pro and the native scheduled-post permission) and an explicit exclusion ('It is not a scheduling action'), which prevents a common mis-invocation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for actually scheduling a post.

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