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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: report IDs are never derived from brand_id, view selection changes required inputs, and response_format='concise' deliberately caps arrays and drops verbose dumps to protect context.

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 long but appropriately so for a 10-parameter tool with four view modes. It is front-loaded with purpose, the input requirement, and the critical report_id warning, then organized under Views and Args headings with no evident filler.

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 lack of an output schema, the description still explains what each view returns at a useful level: list metadata, detailed visibility results, sentiment analysis, and mention counts over time. It covers prerequisites, pagination parameters, defaults, and context-protection behavior sufficiently for correct invocation.

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 only 10%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it documents brand_id, report_id, view, report_type, status, days, limit, offset, and response_format with meanings, defaults, constraints, and conditional requirements. Only user_intent is absent from the description prose, and the schema itself provides its description.

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 ('List reports or retrieve a specific report') and distinguishes the two modes clearly. The view list further separates the possible data operations, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly requires at least one of brand_id or report_id, explains that report IDs are not guessable and must come from view='list', and gives per-view prerequisites. It also advises using report_id with a specific view for large reports, which is actionable routing guidance.

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