get_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data and the description carries a lower burden. The description adds the metric set, which is genuine context, but says nothing about aggregation granularity (per post vs. aggregate), pagination behavior, or what happens when dates are omitted despite all five parameters being optional.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the metric enumeration is the useful payload. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than maximally concise, since a short clause on return shape could have been added without bloat.

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 five all-optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description should explain what the response looks like (per-post rows vs. totals) and what the default scope is when no dates or platform are supplied. It leaves both open, so an agent cannot predict the result set before calling.

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 every parameter (page, limit, startDate, endDate, platform) is already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond that — notably it does not clarify the platform value domain or the default date window when startDate/endDate are omitted.

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 and resource ('Get post performance analytics') and enumerates the metrics returned (impressions, likes, comments, shares), which is far more informative than the bare name. It implicitly separates itself from sibling reporting tools like get_delivery_report and get_revenue_overview by scoping to post-level engagement, but it never names those alternatives, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether a connection or published post is required), and no mention of the reporting siblings an agent might otherwise pick. The agent must guess whether this is the right tool for account-level or campaign-level reporting.

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