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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description goes further by disclosing the platform gap (TikTok-only for now, other platforms say so), the freshness semantic (as of the last read, as_of), and that the call is free. These are the kind of constraints an agent cannot derive from structured fields yet needs in order to set user expectations.

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?

It is front-loaded with the triggering intent in quotes, then payload, then exclusions, which is the right order. Slightly over-written in places, notably 'Free and read only', which restates the annotations rather than adding meaning.

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 parameterless read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps that matter: what entity the numbers belong to, the time window, staleness, and platform coverage. Nothing an agent needs in order to choose or call it 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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and the description correctly and explicitly states 'Takes no parameters', removing any doubt about required arguments. There is nothing further to add beyond that.

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 names a specific resource (per connected account) and a specific set of metrics: latest followers, following, likes, videos, plus 7-day change and daily history. It also names its two nearest siblings by contrast, so an agent can distinguish it from get_post_stats and compare_platforms without opening any schema.

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 guidance is explicit and both-sided: it opens with example user phrasings that should route here and closes with a 'Not for:' clause naming the exact alternatives for post-level and cross-platform questions. No inference is left about when to pick this tool.

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