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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior beyond them by disclosing the 1-hour cache and the partial metric availability per platform. It does not describe response shape or pagination, which are minor gaps here.

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?

One front-loaded sentence delivering the purpose, metric list, platform list and cache note with no filler. The long platform enumeration is dense but earns its place by defining coverage boundaries.

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 sensibly enumerates what is returned (followers, 28-day views, reach, engagement, profile views) and notes caching. The only missing element is how the workspace parameter alters scope, which is minor for a near-zero-arg read tool.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (workspace) whose schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries its meaning; the description never mentions workspace scope at all. With full coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds nothing parameter-level.

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 ('Get account-level stats for every connected account') and enumerates the metrics returned, which implicitly separates it from post-level siblings like get_post_metrics. It does not explicitly name the alternative account-level tools (get_account_trends, get_analytics), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 scope ('account-level', 'every connected account') implies when to reach for this over per-post tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. The platform caveat ('where the platform exposes them') is useful context but not routing guidance.

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