Get analytics

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds non-obvious behavior: content-analysis metrics are computed over the analyzed-post subset, so their denominators are smaller than raw post counts. It also clarifies override semantics (date/keyword/platform params replace saved-search settings). It stops short of describing response shape or cost/latency characteristics.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then scoping rule, then metric list. The metric enumeration is long but each item is meaningfully distinct and helps metric selection. Minor density cost from listing all eleven families inline rather than grouping.

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 15-parameter analytics tool with no output schema, the description covers scoping, metric choice, per-group breakdown, and the analyzed-subset denominator caveat — enough to call it correctly. It could say more about what each result group contains, but the metric list implies the shape.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in structured fields and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the most consequential semantics — savedSearchId inherits groups/platforms/date/keyword filters, entityIds is a single ad-hoc group — but adds little that the schema descriptions do not already state at greater depth.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Aggregated analytics for a scope of entities, broken down per comparison group') and enumerates the eleven metric families so an agent knows the full output surface. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_mentions (raw posts) or get_saved_search (scope definition) because it is the aggregation endpoint.

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?

Explicitly prescribes scoping: 'exactly one of savedSearchId (recommended ...) or entityIds (ad-hoc, treated as a single group); the other parameters filter or override the scope,' and notes 'themes ... requires taxonomy.' It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. use search_mentions when raw posts are needed instead of aggregates), so a 4 rather than 5.

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