List scheduled posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the result ordering ('soonest first'), which is genuinely useful context, but pagination behavior and result shape are not disclosed.

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 with zero filler; the identification and the ordering guarantee both earn their 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?

For a simple read-only list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers what is listed and in what order. However, with limit/offset present there is no statement about pagination defaults or result shape, leaving a modest gap for an agent to infer.

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 67%: limit and publication are documented in the schema while offset is not (type number with no description). The description contributes nothing about any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the offset gap even though offset implies pagination semantics an agent should understand.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List posts queued to publish later') plus an ordering guarantee ('soonest first'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_posts and list_drafts. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of the 5-tier sibling differentiation.

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 scope phrase 'queued to publish later' implies when this tool applies versus list_posts or list_drafts, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of the parallel list_scheduled_notes tool. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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