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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the credit cost (0.02 credits) and a prompt-injection caution about caption text, both of which are operationally important and absent from structured fields. It does not explain why readOnlyHint is false for a stats fetch, but it also makes no read-only claim, so this is a gap rather than a contradiction.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded: the payload and cost first, the safety caveat second. No redundant restatement of the title or name, and no filler.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and it covers cost and injection risk. What is missing is any hint about error behavior for invalid URLs or unsupported posts, which would matter for an open-world tool.

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%, with the schema already spelling out accepted post formats (URL, Instagram shortcode, TikTok/YouTube video ID) and the platform enum. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 specific verb and resource ('One post's stats and content') and enumerates exactly what comes back (views, likes, comments, shares, caption, hashtags, mentions). The singular 'one post' scope implicitly separates it from get_creator_posts and get_hashtag_posts, but those siblings are never named.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a URL or shortcode), and no mention of alternatives such as get_creator_posts for a full feed or get_post_comments for comment threads. The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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