Get best performing posts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add the non-obvious: that metric choice silently excludes networks lacking that metric, making results non-comparable across networks. That is a genuine behavioral caveat not derivable from the schema. Return shape/ordering ties and pagination are not addressed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, then usage framing, then the caveat that changes how you pick the metric. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 read-only, all-optional-parameter ranking tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, selection criteria, and the main analytical pitfall. Missing: how ties/missing metrics appear in the response and whether `from_date`/`to_date` defaults are honored implicitly, though the schema documents those defaults.

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 80% (metric and both dates documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for `metric` by explaining why engagement is the safe cross-network choice, which the enum description does not convey; `limit`, `to_date`, and `id_organization` get no added semantics.

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 concrete verb+resource ('best performing posts of a range, ranked by one metric') and frames the question it answers ('what worked?'), which separates it from the many list_*/get_publication_stats siblings. It never names a sibling explicitly, and the name/schema say 'publications' while the description says 'posts', so the agent must infer they are the same resource.

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?

Gives clear situational framing ('This is the tool for "what worked?"') and actionable selection advice: rank by engagement rather than impressions when comparing across networks. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative tool for per-post detail.

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