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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so 'Read-only' adds nothing, but the description contributes real behavioral context beyond them: no ranking cut-off means low-performing posts are still returned, and results are broken down per network with the listed metrics. It does not cover rate limits, pagination, or the effect of the days window on network counters.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the appended French sentence restates the same content verbatim in another language, which is redundancy for a routing-oriented description rather than information that earns its 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics (views, likes, comments, shares, engagement, tracked clicks) and the per-network/per-uuid granularity, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. The ambiguous interaction between the days window and cumulative network counters is left unexplained.

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 67% and the days and post_uuid parameters already carry their own descriptions. The description confirms the uuid designation and the per-network breakdown but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (get stats for one post) with explicit scope: designated by uuid, broken down per network. It also names the sibling get_top_posts as the thing it is not, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with get_top_posts ('unlike get_top_posts there is no ranking cut-off'), which tells the agent when to prefer this tool for poorly performing posts. No guidance is given on when to use get_analytics or get_post instead, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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