zernio_get_posting_frequency

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

The description clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get ... stats'), and no destructive behavior is implied. Without annotations, the description adequately conveys non-destructive nature, though it omits details like authentication requirements or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds relevant detail about engagement correlation, with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the main return value (posting frequency stats and engagement correlation) and the key parameter (accountId). However, it does not specify output format or handle edge cases, but is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., aggregation by day/week/month) but does not explain parameter roles or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('posting frequency stats'), and scope ('for an account'), and differentiates from sibling analytics tools by focusing on frequency and engagement correlation.

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 implies usage for analyzing posting frequency and engagement correlation, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_daily_metrics, get_follower_analytics) or when not to use it.

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