get_analytics_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by enumerating the returned metrics and noting that availableTags reveals the tags in use, which is genuinely useful discovery context. It stops short of covering pagination or the effect of combining brand and tag filters.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the metric list is front-loaded and the filtering hint follows. Slightly dense, but every clause conveys information an agent can act on.

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 helpfully sketches the return content (counts, rates, breakdown, totals), and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains thin is the time window semantics — 'recent window' leans on the schema's default of 30 days — but overall 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 100%, so all three parameters (tag, days, brand) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's 'filter by brand or by a tag' and 'recent window' framing loosely maps to these params but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 the resource (analytics summary) and enumerates the concrete measures returned: post counts, verified-live rate, per-platform breakdown, engagement totals. That is far more specific than a tautology and lets an agent know exactly what this tool yields, though it does not need to distinguish itself from a competing analytics sibling because none exists.

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 two filtering modes (by brand, or by tag to compare campaigns) and points at availableTags as the source of tag values, which implies usage. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over raw post listings like list_scheduled_posts, nor does it set any exclusions or preconditions.

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