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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds materially above that: cost ('Free'), data scope ('covers posts RipClip published'), the exact metrics returned per platform, and a genuine analytical caveat that platforms count views differently so results must not be summed. That caveat is behavioral guidance an agent could not derive from annotations or schema.

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 use cases, then params, then return shape, then the comparability caveat, then exclusions — a sensible order with no filler. It is dense and quote-heavy, and the parameter sentence runs long mid-paragraph, but each sentence carries real information.

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 two-parameter, read-only analytics tool with an output schema, the definition covers scope, defaults, limits, per-platform return concepts, a cross-platform interpretation warning, and sibling exclusions. There is no ambiguity left that would cause a wrong call.

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 does: clip_id is explained as 'that clip everywhere it was posted, empty = all posts', and days is given a default of 30 with an explicit ceiling of 90. Both parameters gain meaning that is absent from the bare integer/string schema.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource (platforms side by side) and immediately grounds it in the exact user phrasings it answers ("which platform got the most views", "TikTok vs Shorts vs Reels this month"). This makes it trivially distinguishable from get_post_stats, weekly_report and best_time_to_post, which are named later.

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?

Provides both when-to-use (side-by-side platform comparison, per-platform view questions) and an explicit 'Not for:' clause routing the agent to get_post_stats for individual posts, weekly_report for the recap, and best_time_to_post for posting hours. Nothing is left to inference.

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