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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description still adds genuine context beyond them: null means the platform sends no such count, results are newest first, limit is capped at 1-50, and status "draft" returns the post_id consumed by update_draft/delete_draft. It also scopes coverage to posts RipClip published or planned, which is not derivable from any structured field.

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 the trigger condition and organized as trigger → return shape → parameter semantics → exclusions, which is a sensible reading order. It is a single dense block with several quoted user utterances; those aid routing but make it longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Covers trigger, scope, parameter behavior, ordering, null semantics, and every sibling boundary an agent could confuse it with, even though an output schema already exists. Nothing needed to select or invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 carries the full burden and does so: platform accepts tiktok/youtube/instagram/... or "all" (default), status accepts draft/scheduled/posted/failed with empty meaning all, and limit is bounded 1-50 with newest-first ordering. This compensates completely for the bare schema, including the cross-tool coupling of the draft post_id.

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+resource (get post stats) and immediately grounds it in concrete user phrasings like "which TikTok took off" and "how many views did my Short get". It also enumerates what comes back per post (platform, status, post URL, caption, views/likes/comments/shares/saves, 1h/24h/7d views), which no sibling tool offers.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition ("Use this when the user wants the numbers for their posts") backed by example queries, then adds an explicit exclusion list mapping each alternative to its use case: weekly_report for recaps, compare_platforms for cross-platform, whats_taking_off for growth velocity, get_account_stats for followers. 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.