get_my_post_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It transparently states this is a read operation and enumerates the data shown (votes, reactions, demographics). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting nuances, potential data delays, or whether 'your content' includes drafts or only published posts. For a get operation, the gaps are moderate.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the data categories. Every clause carries useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity read tool with three optional pagination/sorting parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the returned categories. It might mention the specific demographic dimensions, but the schema covers mechanics. The lack of annotations is balanced by the simplicity and high schema coverage.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (page, sort_by, per_page), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds context about the returned data but does not elaborate on how parameters affect the output beyond what the schema already states. No value added beyond structured fields.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get performance data for posts you published to Resonate' with specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_post (single post retrieval) and get_post_demographics (likely narrower focus), though it does not name alternatives explicitly as the high benchmark does.

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 context is implied: use when you want performance metrics for your own published posts. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which siblings to choose instead (e.g., get_post_demographics for a specific post's demographics). The tone is clear but lacks direct exclusions or alternatives.

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