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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral substance by defining the report's sections and clarifying 'exposure' as activity on threads after the user replied, which an agent could not otherwise know. It stops short of stating what period 'this week' covers or any cost/latency.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core framing ('This week next to last week for one brand'), and every listed item is a genuine report section rather than filler. It reads as a run-on list, which slightly hurts scannability but wastes no words.

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 description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the report's contents and defining the ambiguous metric 'exposure'. The notable remaining gap is the definition of the comparison window (calendar week, timezone), which matters for interpreting the numbers.

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 coverage is 100% and the single brand_id parameter already documents the UUID source and the 'leave it out when the user has one brand' rule. The description only reinforces the one-brand scope and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 enumerates exactly what the report contains (cues, replies, exposure, wins, audience counts, fastest-growing replies, unanswered mentions) and scopes it to 'one brand' versus 'last week'. It is unambiguously the reporting tool among siblings like get_cue and list_cues, though it is phrased as a noun list rather than a verb+resource statement.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for weekly summary requests, and 'for one brand' hints at scoping. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_cues for raw cue retrieval.

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