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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: the 'INFERNO ONLY' access gate signals a plan/tier restriction, and it discloses what the response contains (daily counts, totals, most recent negative items). It stops short of describing pagination or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the access gate ('INFERNO ONLY') is front-loaded before the content description and usage triggers.

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 read-only analytics tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description tells the agent what data comes back and when to call it. Minor gaps remain around result volume and ordering of the 'most recent negative' items, but nothing essential 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 100% and the single 'days' parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'daily counts' loosely implies a time window but adds no syntax or default details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific resource (audience sentiment) and enumerates the sources it draws from (comments, DMs, reviews, found mentions) plus the shape of the data (daily counts, totals, most recent negatives). That level of specificity distinguishes it from siblings like get_analytics and get_engagement_trend without needing to open either schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use triggers: 'before writing about performance' and 'when asked how people are reacting.' However, it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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