Get aggregated post metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the free-plan 31-day window cap and the fact that longer ranges are clamped and reported, which tells the agent to expect silently altered inputs. It does not describe aggregation granularity or response shape.

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 sentences, both load-bearing. The core purpose is front-loaded and the plan-limitation caveat follows immediately; there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and 'aggregated metrics' stays generic — no indication of which metrics or what the reported clamp looks like in the response. Two of four parameters are also undocumented. Adequate to invoke correctly, thin for interpreting results.

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 only 50%: startDateTime and endDateTime carry ISO 8601 hints, while channelIds and organizationId are undocumented in both places. The description partially compensates by attaching the 31-day clamping behavior to the date-range parameters, but it says nothing about the channel filter or organization scoping.

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 ('Return aggregated metrics for an organization in a date range'), which clearly separates it from the list/get post and config siblings. No sibling offers overlapping functionality, so explicit differentiation isn't needed, but the description stops short of naming the metric scope.

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?

Usage is implied by the description — call it when you need aggregated metrics over a date range — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, nor any statement of prerequisites. Given no sibling competes for this job, the omission is less costly, but it is still inference rather than instruction.

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