fc analytics top members

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds real value beyond them: an explicit permission requirement (FluentCommunity Pro native report permissions), a result-size cap of ten, and a scope caveat that this is not a whole-site export. Return format details (fields per profile) remain unspecified.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with permissions and scope limits following. The Controller and Route source lines are mostly provenance noise for an agent, but the overall definition stays compact and does not bury the operative information.

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 carries the return-value burden and does state what comes back (ten member profiles ordered by lifetime points). Combined with the stated permission prerequisite and the readOnly/idempotent annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only field-level return detail is missing.

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% for the single `account` parameter, so the schema already explains it as an exact configured private account profile label. The description's reference to 'the requested range' does not map to any declared parameter and adds no usable syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Returns), resource (member profiles), ordering (lifetime points), cardinality (ten), and cohort filter (joined within range). This is far more precise than a tautology, but it never names or contrasts the sibling analytics tools (top_commenters, top_post_starters, member_activity), so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no explicit alternative is offered among the four sibling fc_analytics_* report tools. The negative note that it is 'not a whole-site audience export' sketches a scope boundary, but the agent is still left to infer which report to pick.

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