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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the rate limit, the expected latency ('results arrive within a few minutes'), and the automatic 24-hour cadence. The annotations establish idempotent/non-destructive/non-read-only, and the description layers operational behavior an agent needs to avoid redundant calls.

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, each carrying distinct load: what it does, the automatic cadence, and the rate limit plus latency. No filler and the action is front-loaded.

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 an asynchronous trigger with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: async timing, throttle limits, and auto-sync behavior. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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%, and the single optional parameter is fully documented there including the 'omit to sync every account' semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 and resource ('queues a refresh of post metrics') and makes the async nature explicit, which separates it from the read-oriented siblings get_post_analytics, list_post_analytics, and get_analytics_summary. An agent can tell this triggers a refresh rather than fetching results.

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?

Tells the agent when a manual sync is unnecessary ('also sync automatically every 24 hours') and the throttling constraint ('once every 15 minutes per workspace'), which is real guidance about when calling is worthwhile. It does not, however, name an alternative tool for simply reading existing metrics, so the when-to-use-vs-sibling routing is implied rather than stated.

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