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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/no destruction, and the description adds context they cannot: the metric window (30 days), the cost profile ("Uses no credits"), the return structure (accounts[], top_posts[], bottom_posts[]), and the behavior when no account is connected.

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 what is returned, then usage and alternatives, then edge case and cost. Every clause carries distinct information (metrics, differentiation, output shape, credit cost) with no filler.

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 compensates by naming the returned keys and the empty-state message, and it flags the no-credit cost for a read-heavy analytics call. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and know what to expect.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single `limit` parameter is fully documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only implies the limit through "strongest and weakest recent posts" without stating count or the 1–10 cap, adding no real meaning beyond the schema.

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 (returns the creator's own analytics), enumerates exactly what is measured (followers, posts, views per account, 30-day change, strongest/weakest posts), and explicitly contrasts with tracked-competitor data in get_feed and get_creator_report.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ("plan from what already works for this creator") and routes the agent away to named alternatives for competitor data. It also covers the empty-state case (no account connected returns where to connect one), so nothing is left to inference.

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