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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds value by stating 'they are read-only', naming the required analytics.read permission, and noting that metrics live in another tool. It does not cover pagination/volume behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the defining scope in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct fact (read-only, metrics location, use cases, permission). Slightly dense but no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described; the description covers scope, safety, permission requirement, and the sibling holding metrics. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so every parameter (from, to, limit, platforms, workspaceId, connectionIds) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the window concept ('inside the window') without adding format or semantics beyond the schema, 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 with a precise scope: posts on connected accounts NOT published through AdaptlyPost, with listed fields (text, thumbnail, permalink, account, publish time). This clearly distinguishes it from list_posts (published via the tool) and routes metric needs to list_post_analytics.

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 concrete use cases ('show what an account posted outside AdaptlyPost or to fill in the calendar') and names the sibling that holds the complementary data (list_post_analytics). It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_posts over this, but the scope statement makes the boundary inferable.

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