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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does convey that the tool returns aggregated totals rather than raw engagement data, and that results are scoped to a time window. It does not disclose defaults, data freshness, platform scope, or whether zero-engagement platforms are included, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key output concept, 'engagement totals per platform', and communicates the main scope, 'over a window', without redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential return shape: engagement totals per platform. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps around the default window, what counts as engagement, and the exact platform list, which an agent may need to infer.

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 schema provides no description for the days parameter, so the phrase 'over a window' adds some contextual meaning. The parameter name, type, and min/max constraints make its role largely inferable, but the description does not explain the default behavior when days is omitted, which is a notable gap.

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 clearly states what the tool returns: engagement totals grouped by platform over a time window. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_scheduled_posts or get_plan_usage, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' and does not directly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 intended usage is implied: an agent should call this when the user wants engagement analytics per platform over a period. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to closely related tools such as get_plan_usage.

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