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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: an auth requirement (JWT), the personal-data scope, and the default window behavior (last 30 days when month is omitted). It does not cover pagination or result size, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the auth requirement, then the payload contents, then the sibling contrast. It is dense and slightly run-on in the content enumeration, but every clause carries information an agent needs; little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly describes what the report contains, and with zero required parameters the calling surface is simple. It is nearly complete; only return shape details (ordering, volume) are left implicit.

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 only 50% (agent_id has no schema description), but the description compensates by defining agent_id as 'one of your agents' and restating the month format. It adds genuine meaning beyond the schema for the undocumented parameter, exceeding the baseline for partial coverage.

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 exact deliverable (your own report) and enumerates its contents: Rokha's posts and raids about you with reach, creator posts tagging you, agent calls of your tools, and runs of your listings. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling network_report, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It states the prerequisite ('Requires a JWT') and gives a direct contrast with the alternative: network_report is the public size of the whole network, whereas this is your personal report. That routing condition is clear, though it stops short of a full 'use this when X, not Y' statement.

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