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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are cached for up to an hour, `last_updated` records when each figure was read from the platform, and unpublished or unsupported-platform targets are silently omitted rather than erroring. That omission behavior is the kind of quirk an agent could otherwise misread as missing data.

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?

Four tight sentences with the metrics and per-platform scope front-loaded, then caching and exclusions. No filler, though the caching and `last_updated` detail could have been ordered after the exclusion rule to keep the calling conditions together.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description still helpfully flags `last_updated` as a returned field. Caching staleness and silent omission of unsupported or unpublished targets are covered; the only real gap is what identifier form `id` expects, which matters for a tool an agent must call with a required id.

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% for the single required `id` parameter, so the schema contributes nothing about its meaning. The description says the tool works on 'one post' and warns that unpublished targets are excluded, which implies `id` identifies a post, but it never states whether that is an internal post id or a platform-specific id, nor any format expectations.

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 specific resource ('views, likes, comments, shares and saves for each platform copy of one post') and enumerates the metrics returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It scopes to a single post rather than an account-wide rollup, which implicitly separates it from the sibling get_analytics, but it never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage context is implied through scope rules: it applies to posts on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube or Facebook, and to posts created via API, dashboard, or workflow. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_analytics or what to do when a target is excluded, leaving the agent to infer the alternative path.

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