Dashboard overview

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: sections degrade independently and an 'unavailable' marker means only that section failed while the rest of the payload stays valid — key for interpreting partial results.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents before the usage hint and the degradation caveat. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 usefully doubles as a return-value summary by enumerating the sections and explaining the partial-failure semantics. It is nearly complete for an agent's needs; only deeper section schemas or pagination limits are unaddressed, and those are minor for a read-only dashboard.

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%, so both parameters (timezone, workspaceId) are already thoroughly documented in the schema, including field-level advice about UTC defaults. The description adds no parameter detail, 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 names a specific resource ('the workspace at a glance') and enumerates exactly what it returns: lifetime views/likes, published count, the last five reels with status, and what's scheduled next. This content list clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_analytics or get_post_analytics, which are narrower drill-downs.

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?

'The best first call for "how am I doing"' gives clear usage context and positions it as an entry point. However, it never names alternatives or states when NOT to use it (e.g., use get_analytics for deeper breakdowns), so guidance stops short of explicit routing.

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