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 description only needs to add context. It does so with a genuinely useful gotcha: postId here is the analytics id, whereas recycle_post needs the Ignix id from list_posts. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering nuances.

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, the ranking/scope statement front-loaded, then the actionable id caveat. No filler and every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 steps in to name the returned fields (metrics, engagement rate, caption), and it resolves the cross-tool id ambiguity. It remains slightly thin on result ordering and the interaction between platform/accountId filters, but it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 83%, so the schema already documents days, kind, limit, accountId and workspaceId. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 gives a specific verb+resource with scope (ranking of published posts by engagement in the period) and enumerates what comes back (metrics, engagement rate, caption). It is clearly distinct from list_posts and recycle_post, which it names, but it doesn't explicitly draw the line against neighboring analytics reads like get_analytics or get_engagement_trend.

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 states concrete use cases: 'explain what works' and 'pick posts worth recycling', and it routes the agent to the right source for the id that recycle_post requires. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit exclusion versus the other analytics siblings.

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