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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance: recently published posts will have no figures and that is not an error. It also states 'Read-only' consistently, though without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and metric list. However, the redundant 'Read-only' (already in annotations) and the full French translation add duplication without new information, marginally reducing conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does list the key indicators and per-network breakdown. It omits metric definitions and formatting details, but is reasonably complete for an analytics endpoint with rich 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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented workspace_uuid parameter. It only vaguely implies 'for a workspace over a period' and does not explain the days enum values, default, or what the period window controls beyond the schema's French note.

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 names the resource (aggregated indicators for a workspace) and enumerates the specific metrics returned, clearly distinguishing this workspace-level period summary from post-level siblings like get_post_stats or get_top_posts. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The freshness caveat is about data behavior, not tool selection.

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