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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that data comes from locally cached analytics rather than a live platform fetch, explaining dashboard parity caveats, unsupported platforms, X API key requirements, and background sync behavior. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before calling a tool whose annotations alone would not reveal these operational traits.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and main subfolder behavior, and it uses clear paragraphs for caveats, platform coverage, and freshness. It is fairly long and some platform coverage details are verbose, but most sentences carry useful behavioral context rather than 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?

Given the tool's complexity, the 100% schema coverage, and the absence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the response shape, per-platform and per-video breakdowns, platform-specific limitations, and sync freshness behavior, leaving little ambiguity for an agent invoking it.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters in detail, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds useful contextual meaning for include_subfolders and the folder_id lookup path, though it does not add much about the days parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns aggregated analytics for a folder across every video inside it. It also distinguishes the folder-level rollup from workspace-level and post-level analytics through explicit scope and examples, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 description gives clear usage context, including the default subfolder rollup behavior, the include_subfolders=false alternative, and the prerequisite to use list_folders for a folder_id. It does not explicitly route the agent to sibling tools such as get_video_analytics or get_post_analytics when finer-grained analytics are needed, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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