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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description is free to add value elsewhere — and it does, disclosing the pagination contract ('request the next page', total under meta.last_page) and an extra return element (distinct tracked brands mentioned per prompt). With no output schema, that return-shape disclosure is genuinely useful; only rate limits or result-size caveats are absent.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and then with the pagination mechanics; nothing is wasted. The standalone fragment 'Paginated.' and the following sentence both cover pagination, a minor redundancy that costs it a point.

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 14-parameter, read-only analytics tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: what is returned, that results are paginated, and how to advance pages and read totals. Annotations carry the safety profile, and parameters are fully documented in the schema, so nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all 14 parameters, including defaults, formats, and allowed sort keys. The description only reinforces the brand scoping implied by the required brand_id; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 and resource (per-prompt aggregates) and enumerates the four metrics returned, plus the scope (single brand). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling analytics tools (list-brand-analytics-tool, list-monitor-analytics-tool, list-platform-analytics-tool, list-source-url-prompt-analytics-tool), so an agent must infer the grain from the name alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the described content — the per-prompt grain is stated, so an agent can guess when it applies — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sibling analytics tools. The only procedural guidance offered is pagination.

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