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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Paginated' as behavioral context, which is genuinely useful but modest. No mention of rate limits, aggregation windows, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Two terse sentences, zero filler, with the resource/scope front-loaded before the pagination note. Every clause 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 aggregate tool with no output schema, the description conveys resource, scope, metrics, and pagination, and the schema carries all 14 parameters. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance against the many sibling analytics tools, which matters in a tool set this large.

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% with 14 fully documented parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of visibility/share-of-voice/sentiment/position mirrors the schema's sort_by values but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('per-monitor aggregates') and names the four metrics returned, plus the brand scoping. 'Per-monitor' distinguishes it from the sibling per-brand/per-platform/per-prompt analytics tools. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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 implies a scope ('scoped to a single brand') but gives no when-to-use guidance and never names alternatives like list-brand-analytics-tool or the get-*-time-series-tools. An agent must infer from the name alone when this aggregate tool is preferable to a time-series tool.

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