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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but doesn't state safety, permissions, or side effects. It also doesn't explain default behavior when parameters are omitted or the response format, so the agent is left without important 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 a single concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. However, its brevity contributes to the lack of crucial details, though for conciseness alone it is efficient.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return value structure, parameter semantics, or when to choose this over related metrics tools, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions example metrics but never connects them to the actual parameters (metrics, date_from, date_to, account_ids). It doesn't explain date formats, default behavior, or valid values, making it impossible to populate parameters correctly from the description alone.

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 it retrieves account-level metrics (followers, impressions, reach) for connected social accounts, using the specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource. It distinguishes from post-level tools by the 'account-level' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_post_metrics or get_stats_overview. There are no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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