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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a fixed 30-day window, a roughly daily refresh cadence for views, and the caveat that campaign earnings are an estimate rather than a measurement. It stops short of describing response shape or empty-state behavior, but that is minor here.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and the 30-day window before listing outputs, so the key scope lands first. The metric list is dense but every clause carries return-content information; readability suffers slightly from the run-on enumeration.

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 parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only shape, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so explicitly for every metric. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it or interpret the result is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies the date window and account scope are fixed rather than configurable, which prevents an agent from hunting for filters that do not exist.

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 a specific verb and resource and then enumerates the exact contents of the return: posts per network, total and per-day views, clips made, best-performing clip, and earnings estimates for campaign-linked clips. That enumeration implicitly distinguishes it from per-item siblings like get_clip_stats or get_earnings, since this is a 30-day aggregate overview.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the 'how am I doing overall' dashboard tool versus the per-clip or per-campaign tools. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_clip_stats, get_earnings, or get_campaign, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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