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

Discloses significant behavior beyond the annotations: numbers come from a local cache, not a live fetch; a stale workspace triggers a background sync reported in the `sync` field with the returned numbers still being from the previous sync; and sync.status values free_plan_limit/daily_limit mean no sync ran. The readOnlyHint=false is consistent with this write side effect, and per-platform data availability limits (X API key requirement, Google Business Profile, Telegram/Discord) are spelled out.

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?

Purpose and return shape are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the labeled sections (Dashboard parity note, Analytics coverage, Freshness) make it scannable. It is nonetheless long, with a 13-platform enumeration that could be trimmed, costing it the top score.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of return-value disclosure and does so by naming every returned metric plus the per-platform sibling rows and the `sync` field. For a tool with real data-reliability caveats, it covers source of truth, coverage gaps, and freshness handling.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema already documents both the list_video_uploads lookup and the 'published sibling' precondition. The description repeats that guidance without adding syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 aggregated analytics for a single video upload') plus the exact scope: per-platform sibling rows plus summed totals, with the metric list enumerated. An agent can distinguish this from get_post_analytics or get_workspace_analytics purely from the phrasing without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_video_uploads for the required id and names the precondition that a platform sibling must already be published. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings like get_post_analytics or explain_post_analytics_state, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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