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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description carries a lighter burden. The description adds that the payload is demographic/temporal aggregate data, but says nothing about data freshness, aggregation window, or cost despite openWorldHint=true.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the returned dimensions. Nothing is padded, though the enumeration could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 does list the main return dimensions, which is a real contribution. However, for a tool where account_id is required but undocumented and brand_id is optional-but-conditional, the definition leaves an agent without enough guidance to assemble a correct call in multi-brand contexts.

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 description never mentions either parameter beyond the vague 'de una cuenta'. Schema coverage is only 50%: brand_id is documented in the schema, but account_id has no description anywhere, so the agent gets no help on where that ID comes from.

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 concrete data returned — audience geography, age brackets, and the days/hours with most activity — so an agent knows exactly what resource is being read. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_account_stats, leaving the boundary between 'insights' and 'stats' to be inferred.

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?

The trailing clause 'para elegir cuándo publicar' implies the intended use case (scheduling decisions), which is useful but indirect. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_account_stats or get_brand_overview, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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