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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses workspace-dependent retention ('asking for too many days is refused with the most allowed'), the refusal behavior, and that days are UTC days. 'Read only' merely repeats the annotation, and the shape of the returned counts is only sketched, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then filtering and retention constraints in a compact flow. Minor waste in the fragment 'Every platform.' and the redundant 'Read only.' which the annotations already declare.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, aggregation granularity, filtering, timezone, and retention limits. The exact returned fields and whether drafts/planned items are counted are left implicit, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine context beyond the schema by explaining that the lookback limit is workspace-dependent even though the schema advertises a fixed maximum, and that days are UTC days. It largely restates the social_group_id semantics already present in 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 and resource ('what Sociro sent out... posts published and failed, per platform, per account and per day') and makes clear it is an aggregated activity report pulled from its own records. That aggregation frame distinguishes it from sibling post-level tools like list_posts, get_post and list_accounts without naming them.

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?

Gives clear scoping rules: omit social_group_id to count every social group together, pass one to isolate a single brand. It does not explicitly route the agent away from alternatives (e.g. list_posts for individual posts) or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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