get_audience_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It discloses a non-obvious failure mode (the Meta privacy floor and resulting Graph error) and version-dependent behavior, which is valuable context beyond just 'get audience insights'. Permissions and rate limits are not discussed, but for a read-oriented getter with an output schema this is a reasonably transparent description.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core resource, 'Follower demographics'. The three sentences convey the prerequisite, the Graph API parameterization, and override behavior without excessive padding. The phrasing is somewhat telegraphic and 'All are override-able' is vague, but nothing is truly wasted.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the main prerequisite and the most important parameter spellings, while the output schema covers return shape. However, 'period' and 'account' are left underspecified, there is no guidance on sibling tools, and the mention of 'engaged-audience metrics' alongside follower_demographics could confuse invocation. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter values. It does so for the key parameters: metric, metric_type, breakdown, and timeframe, including explicit option values. However, 'period' and 'account' are not meaningfully explained beyond 'All are override-able', so it does not fully compensate for the zero schema coverage.

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 opening phrase identifies a specific resource, 'Follower demographics', with concrete dimensions (age, gender, country, city), which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_account_insights or get_media_insights. It does not actually state a verb—'get' appears only in the tool name—and it never names a sibling contrast, so it falls short of a 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 gives a concrete precondition: the account must have at least 100 followers, and it warns that below that the Graph returns an error surfaced cleanly. It also provides parameter guidance for newer Graph versions ('metric=follower_demographics', 'metric_type=total_value', 'breakdown=...', timeframe values). It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it is not a 5.

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