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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial context beyond that: daily vs lifetime periods, the meaning of a missing key, and a per-object `note` field the caller must relay. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but the metric-interpretation guidance is genuinely valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into metric semantics. It is long for a two-parameter tool and reads as a dense run-on, but with no output schema present most sentences carry needed return-interpretation detail rather than filler.

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 bears the burden of explaining the return shape and does so thoroughly – platform metrics, audience objects, period values, and the note-relaying requirement. The main gap is the absence of any usage routing relative to the sibling analytics tools.

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 the date and platform parameters are already documented in the schema. The description references 'the snapshot date' but adds no filtering syntax or defaults beyond what the schema provides. 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+resource ('Get account-level analytics') and enumerates the metrics returned (followers, impressions, reach, engagement, etc.). 'Account-level' implicitly distinguishes it from post-level siblings like get_post_analytics, but it never names them, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives. Siblings get_analytics_overview, get_post_analytics, and get_best_times are never mentioned, so an agent must guess which analytics tool to pick. Only the implicit 'account-level' scope hints at selection.

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