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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals a non-obvious behavioral trait — the ranking formula (likes×3 + comments×2 + views÷10) — but says nothing about default limit, sort/ordering guarantees, pagination, or result shape.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the period glossary and formula. The formula sentence is arguably optional but adds real value for interpreting results.

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 4-param, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, periods, platforms and scoring but omits default limit, whether category and platform compose, and what the returned entries look like. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the period enum values (day/week/month/year) and names the platforms, but leaves limit (no stated default or behavior) and category (14 enum values with no explanation of semantics) undocumented in both schema and description.

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 clear verb+resource (retrieve rankings of popular videos and posts) and enumerates the covered platforms (YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, X, TikTok, Threads). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the share-oriented siblings (get_share, get_share_stats, list_new_shares, search_shares), so an agent must infer that this is the aggregate ranking view rather than a per-share lookup.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the four sibling tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The period glossary hints at intended use but is parameter documentation, not usage routing.

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