Get total impressions

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by revealing that impressions are aggregated from daily snapshots rather than live data, but it does not disclose limitations like timezone handling, snapshot delay, or how multiple date fields (`date` vs `startDate`/`endDate`) interact.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core result is front-loaded, and the second sentence gives the most important parameter semantics without repetition or verbosity.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and a non-obvious set of optional interactions (`date` vs `period` vs `startDate`/`endDate`, plus `metrics`, `breakdown`, `platforms`), the description is too minimal for an agent to reliably choose and fill optional parameters. The output schema covers return values, but input semantics remain under-specified.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It explains only `period` and `startDate`/`endDate`, leaving the other five parameters (`date`, `metrics`, `breakdown`, `platforms`, `profileUsername`) effectively undocumented in both schema and description. This is a significant gap for an 8-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Sum of impressions for a profile') and notes the data source ('daily snapshots'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from closely related siblings like get_platform_metrics or get_analytics, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description gives concrete parameter guidance: use `period` for presets, or `startDate`/`endDate` for custom ranges. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of the many sibling analytics tools, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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