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

With annotations present, the key contribution is explaining why readOnlyHint=false: 'Made the first time it's asked for' discloses the lazy-generation behavior that reconciles the non-read-only annotation with an otherwise read-like tool. It also states the default period ('Last month by default'), which the schema does not. It does not mention permissions, sharing/revocation, or how long the public link stays live, which is material for a link that 'anyone can open without a Shager account'.

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 core purpose and report contents, followed by short sentences covering generation, default period, and the sibling alternative. The first sentence is long and list-heavy, but no sentence 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, and the description compensates by stating the return value is a link and what it renders. Generation timing, default period, intended audience, and the scheduling sibling are all covered, which is everything an agent needs to call this correctly and hand off the result.

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% and the single workspace_id parameter is already documented in the schema ('Workspace id from list_workspaces'), so the baseline is 3. The description's '?m=YYYY-MM' hint refers to a URL query string rather than a tool parameter and is not in the input schema, which could mildly confuse an agent into trying to pass a month argument; the default-month behavior it conveys is otherwise useful.

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 (get) and resource (the workspace's monthly client report link), and enumerates exactly what the report contains (logo, posts, views, reach, engagement, clicks, followers, per-network breakdown, top posts). This is clearly distinguishable from analytics siblings like get_analytics and get_insights because it is a shareable, printable client-facing artifact rather than raw metrics.

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 names the target audience and use case ('Give it to a client or a business owner') and routes the recurring-email alternative to the named sibling set_client_report with its schedule ('on the 1st of each month'). This tells the agent both when to call this tool and when to call the other one instead.

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