get_media_insights

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description discloses conditional metric availability for video/reels. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, errors, invalid media_type behavior, or the shape of the response, leaving some behavioral burden unmet.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action, the target resource, and the metric details efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers the purpose and the key conditional behavior. It could mention the return shape or how media_id should be obtained, but the schema already says media_id comes from list_media and the metric list is explicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the media_type dependency and the scope of insights, but it does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema's already detailed parameter descriptions.

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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('performance insights for a specific media item'), and enumerates the metrics returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_comments or post_el.

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?

It states the context for using the tool: retrieving insights for a specific media item, and notes that media_type affects which metrics are valid. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use it, but the conditions are clear enough.

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