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

Annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the shape of the returned summary: total posts, status breakdown, per-platform stats, and daily counts. It could go further by noting aggregation semantics or timezone handling, but the added output detail is meaningful.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then gives concrete return details, then closes with a clear usage condition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 summary tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the callable behavior, return contents, and usage context. It does not mention sibling view_analytics or potential aggregation limitations, but the missing details are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters (from and to) are fully documented with ISO format examples in the schema itself. The description only mentions 'date range' at a high level and adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Get an analytics summary for a date range,' and it lists concrete output categories like status breakdown and per-platform stats. It clearly differentiates itself from per-post tools like get_post_metrics, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling view_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 description provides an explicit use condition: 'Use this when the user asks how their content performed overall, across channels and over a date range.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which prevents a 5.

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