fc analytics top commenters

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true, the agent already knows this is a safe read. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it requires FluentCommunity Pro native report permissions and clarifies the response is not a whole-site audience export. That permission requirement and scope limitation are useful behavioral details. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but the top-ten cap is stated.

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?

One sentence states the core behavior, followed by a second sentence with controller and permission context. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool is a read-only analytics report with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (top ten members with comment counts) and the scope limitation and permission requirement. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but these are likely not applicable for a top-ten list. The absence of an output schema means the description must convey what is returned, which it does.

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?

The schema description for the 'account' parameter is already 100% coverage, so the schema itself explains it well. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 would apply, but the description does clarify the date range scope implicitly via 'requested range.' Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a 3 or 4 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value by reinforcing the range concept. No parameter count beyond 1, and no required parameters, so this is fairly straightforward.

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 states a clear verb and resource: returns the ten members who wrote the most comments within a date range, each with their comment count. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like fc_list_comments (lists comments) or fc_analytics_top_post_starters (top post starters). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings in the text, so a 4 rather than 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 implies usage by specifying the range-based top-ten scope, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like fc_analytics_top_members or fc_analytics_member_activity. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are given, so this is implied usage only.

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