schedule_linkedin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return format (JSON array of ISO timestamps), the exact timing rule (10 days out through event day at 10:00 Europe/London), and that it is 'Instant', implying no side effects or external calls. It does not explicitly state idempotency or error handling, but for a pure computation this is adequate.

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 short sentences that front-load the main purpose, then add necessary detail about the output format and timezone. No unnecessary words or filler; every sentence contributes value.

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 1-parameter utility returning an array, the description is nearly complete: it specifies input, output format, and the exact schedule rule. It does not mention edge cases like invalid dates or whether the event must exist, but these are less critical for a stateless computation. Thus it is slightly shy of perfect completeness.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter, event_date_iso, is described and example provided. The description mentions 'event date' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool generates the 11-post LinkedIn cadence timestamps for an event date, with a specific scope (10 days out through event day, 10:00 Europe/London). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_event or publish_event, which handle content creation or publishing rather than timestamp generation.

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 description implies usage when an event date is known and the cadence timestamps are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives. Sibling tools suggest it is part of an event workflow, but no direct exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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