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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only.' sentence is largely redundant. The description does add value by listing the returned metric set and the optional daily granularity, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, date-range behavior, or auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the operation, the resource, and the metric set, with the one optional behavior appended at the end. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the metric enumeration usefully substitutes for a return-value spec, but the description leaves several real gaps: the undocumented from/to range, the nested query override, and brand_id. For a 7-parameter read tool with sparse schema coverage, more behavioral context is warranted.

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 43%, and the description barely compensates. It mentions the daily breakdown (granularity), which the schema already documents, but says nothing about the undocumented from/to date-range parameters, brand_id, or the open-ended 'query' override object — the parameters most needing clarification.

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 gives a specific verb (read), resource (performance metrics for one post), and even enumerates the metric families returned (views, impressions, likes, comments, shares, saves). The scoping phrase 'for one post' implicitly separates it from workspace-level siblings like aidelly_get_analytics_summary, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 is only implied: 'for one post' signals single-post scope, and 'optional daily breakdown' hints at trend use. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against the several analytics siblings (aidelly_get_analytics_summary, aidelly_get_analytics_unified, aidelly_generate_analytics_insights).

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