List scheduled statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the 'not published yet' scoping, which is useful, but it discloses nothing about ordering, pagination, or how in-flight/failed scheduled posts are treated.

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 sentence with no filler; every word carries meaning. The filtering condition is front-loaded and precisely phrased.

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 list tool with one optional, well-documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. The return shape (a list of statuses) is implied by the name and description; only minor details like ordering are absent, which does not impede correct invocation.

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%: the account parameter is fully documented in the schema (matching rules, default behavior, pointer to list_accounts). The description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 'Statuses queued with scheduled_at that have not published yet' uses a clear verb-scope pair and pins down the resource (statuses) with a precise filter (queued, not yet published). It distinguishes itself from write-oriented siblings like reschedule_status and cancel_scheduled_status, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

The filtering condition implies when to use it — when you need to see pending scheduled posts — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as reschedule_status, cancel_scheduled_status, or get_status. Usage must be inferred rather than stated.

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