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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool returns comparisons for engagement, growth, and content performance, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like data freshness or aggregation methodology. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context about what the tool returns. It could be strengthened by noting the output format or how the 'industry' parameter is used, but the core functionality is clear.

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 description does not add meaningful parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. The enum for metric is self-explanatory, and the description's mention of 'engagement rates, growth' loosely maps to some enum values but does not enhance understanding.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Compare your performance against industry benchmarks') with a defined resource (performance metrics) and scope (engagement rates, growth, content performance). It distinguishes itself from sibling analytics tools by emphasizing comparative benchmarking rather than raw analytics.

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 usage when users want to benchmark against industry peers, which is clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique focus on 'industry benchmarks' differentiates it from sibling tools like get_analytics or get_post_analytics.

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