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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it fuses stored and live provider metrics (relevant for latency/freshness expectations), enforces date-only input rather than timestamps, and states the return granularity (post, account, date).

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and followed by required input format and return shape. Nothing restates the tool name or title.

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?

For a 6-param read tool with no output schema and a nested query object, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps: the role of brand_id, what the sparse-schema query override is for, any row limits or pagination, and the actual metric fields returned beyond the post/account/date grouping.

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 33% across 6 params. The description usefully adds semantics for from/to (YYYY-MM-DD, not timestamps) and platforms (comma-separated list), and workspace_id is documented in the schema. But brand_id, the nested query override object, and any constraints on those are left undocumented.

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 ('Read unified social analytics rows... combining stored and live provider metrics') with scope detail that separates it from a plain analytics read. It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings like aidelly_get_analytics_summary, aidelly_get_post_analytics, or aidelly_get_analytics_insights, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 the use case (date-ranged, platform-filterable analytics) and states required inputs, but never says when to pick this over the summary/insights/post-analytics siblings or what it excludes. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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