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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses that the response aggregates multiple sources (per-network posts, campaign submissions, earnings estimate) and that freshness is per-post via 'when last updated'. It stops short of stating whether the earnings estimate is computed live or cached, and whether missing networks are omitted or returned as null.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the return payload and packs the field list efficiently. It is dense but has no filler; a short clause on usage would cost little and add more than the current length suggests.

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 must explain what comes back and it largely does: the metric names, the campaign association, and the earnings estimate. Gaps are small — the shape of the earnings estimate and the handling of networks with no posts are unstated.

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 clip_id parameter carries a source hint ('The clip_id from list_clips'), so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or expected behavior for an unknown clip_id, leaving this at the baseline for fully documented single-parameter schemas.

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 gives a specific verb ('Returns') and enumerates the resource contents precisely: per-network post metrics (link, views, likes, comments, shares, last-updated), campaign submissions, and an earnings estimate. That is far more specific than the title 'How a clip is doing' and separates it from get_clip (clip metadata) and get_post_stats (single post) without naming them directly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing between siblings. An agent must infer that this is the aggregate view for one clip versus get_clip, get_post_stats, or get_earnings, and nothing states whether it is a prerequisite for editing or whether the clip must exist first.

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