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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. Against that the description adds meaningful substance: the metric set returned, the previous-period comparison baseline, Telegram-specific metric semantics (views/forwards/reactions/replies, followers = members), and the accepted `days` values.

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 primary case and then structured by parameter combination, so an agent can scan to the mode it needs. The prose is dense and slightly run-on in the platform-codes parenthetical, but no sentence is 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?

With four optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description is complete enough to call correctly: modes, metrics, accepted values, and defaults are all present. Only the id/uuid distinction and the relationship to the accounts-list sibling remain underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it enumerates all six platform codes plus long-form aliases, explains what each identifier combination produces, and constrains `days` to 7/28/90. The one gap is that `account_id` versus `account_uuid` is never distinguished beyond being two ways to name the same account.

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 names a concrete resource (social media report) and enumerates exactly what it returns across three modes: per-platform account aggregates (reach, engagement, followers, published posts vs. previous period), a pickable `accounts` list, and per-account daily insights. It is far more specific than the title alone. It stops short of naming a sibling, so the agent must infer for itself how this differs from `get_social_top_posts` or `list_social_accounts`.

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 branching rules are explicit: omit `platform`/`account_id` for the full account overview, pass `platform` alone for per-account daily insights on that network, pass an account identifier for one account's daily insights. That is genuine when-to-use guidance keyed to parameter combinations. It doesn't say when to prefer this over top-posts or list-accounts siblings, so it falls 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.