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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: it explains that share sums across the universe and that an asset's dominance can fall while absolute volume rises, and it highlights that distinct authors separates real conversation from spam. This goes beyond structured annotations to explain the metric's behavior and intended interpretation.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the additional paragraph is useful context about interpreting the share metric and the distinct authors column. It is fairly concise and every sentence adds value, though the second paragraph is somewhat explanatory rather than strictly operational.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It previews the returned data (posts, distinct authors, engagement, sentiment) and explains the core share semantics. However, it doesn't explicitly explain the window parameter or what 'window' means in terms of hours, and it doesn't describe the exact output shape (e.g., rows per asset, time units).

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 one parameter, hours, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'over a window' and never explains that the hours parameter defines that window, its default of 168, or valid ranges. The default and type are in the schema, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare field name.

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 the tool returns each asset's share of total social attention over a window, with underlying posts, authors, engagement, and sentiment. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_social_posts or analyze_sentiment by emphasizing the relative share metric, not raw posts or standalone sentiment.

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 interpretive guidance about share being relative and the importance of distinct authors, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools are named, and there are no conditions or prerequisites stated for choosing this over other social-data tools.

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