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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: owner-imported reports are not live provider verification, missing/revoked/ambiguous/unavailable data is surfaced explicitly, reported zero remains zero, and cursor continuation rules are stated. It also specifies required authority and permissions, which is meaningful operational detail for an agent.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then proceeds through caveats, cursor behavior, exclusions and auth requirements. It is dense but each sentence carries relevant information, though some phrases are run-on and could be broken up for faster scanning.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key integrity caveats, filter semantics, cursor continuation, exclusions and authorization requirements. It does not describe the response shape, but the caveats around missing and reported-zero data give an agent enough behavioral context to interpret results.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains startsOn as an exact seven-day range, accountRef and platform as preserving per-account and timezone separation, and cursor usage via nextCursor. The limit parameter is not described, leaving one of five parameters without added semantic guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading the existing native Social report for one exact seven-day startsOn range. It clearly distinguishes native provider data from owner-imported reports. It does not name or differentiate against sibling read tools such as get_search_performance or get_website_analytics, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives clear operating context: one exact seven-day range, consistent cursor follow-up with the same week and filters, and explicit exclusions (no financial outcomes, attribution, provider calls, imports or writes). It does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternative reporting siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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