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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: daily refresh cadence, the requirement for a Pro account, and a Cotlet API key with app access. These are real prerequisites an agent must verify before calling.

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 metric list is duplicated across the first and second sentences (leads, proposals, funded projects, response time/rate, earnings appear twice), which is wasted space. The auth requirements are useful but placed last rather than 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 a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is measured, the data freshness, and access requirements. Only the absence of guidance on sibling stats tools keeps it from being fully complete.

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 enum parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to 'a period' without adding format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

Specific verb (get) plus a named resource (Pro Analytics) with an explicit enumeration of the metrics returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dribbble_get_shot_stats or dribbble_list_leads, which cover different data.

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 implies the tool is used to read dashboard figures for a period, but it never states when to prefer this over sibling stats tools (e.g. dribbble_get_shot_stats). No explicit when-not or alternative routing.

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