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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond a read-only fetch. It does not mention how the stats are computed, whether the date range is inclusive, whether granularity affects defaults, or any other behavior that is not already obvious from the schema.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than valuable conciseness. The single sentence repeats the tool's title without adding content, so it does not earn its place in a helpful tool description.

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?

Even though the input schema is well-documented and an output schema exists, the description itself fails to communicate what follower stats measure, how they relate to accounts and profiles, or how the tool differs from sibling analytics tools. An agent relying on this description would not know the intent or boundaries of the tool without additional inference.

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 parameters are already well-documented with their defaults and meanings. The description contributes no extra parameter semantics, but the schema handles the burden fully.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance about when this tool should be used versus alternative analytics or account tools. It also does not mention whether the user must have an account, which account IDs are applicable, or what conditions would make a different sibling tool more appropriate.

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