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

Annotations already disclose readOnly, open-world, and idempotent behavior, so the description is not required to repeat those. It adds useful scoping context by specifying 'organic' and 'published' posts, which clarifies the behavioral boundary. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, the output content is stated, and the usage guidance is concise and purposeful.

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?

For a read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description provides enough guidance to select and invoke it. It mentions the key output dimensions (impressions, engagement) but does not fully describe the return structure—slightly mitigated by the absence of an output schema being a common pattern.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents parameters like start_date, end_date, profile, and organization_id. The description adds high-level context about date range and output metrics, but does not need to repeat parameter-level details.

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 a specific action ('list'), a specific resource ('organic posts published by a company page'), and the date-range scope, while adding that each post carries impressions and engagement. The phrase 'organic posts published' also distinguishes this from scheduled or ad-post tools in the sibling list.

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 clearly states when this tool is useful: comparing company-page reach against personal posts and checking publication frequency before drawing conclusions. It gives a clear use context, though it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name an alternative tool.

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