x_api_get_posts_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes read-only risk, required OAuth scopes and token types, environment-selection behavior for auth resolution, common failure conditions (e.g., missing credentials, rate limits), and safety warnings about sensitive data. This substantially exceeds baseline 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?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections, each providing essential information without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, from permissions to failure conditions to an example. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the expected response shape. It covers prerequisites, environment behavior, failure conditions, recommended companion tools, and safety warnings. This makes the tool self-contained and actionable for an agent, with no critical gaps.

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 0%, but the description compensates by detailing four required parameters with their API names, locations, types, and required status (ids, end_time, start_time, granularity). It also explains the behavior of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. However, it does not cover all 10 parameters (e.g., authorizationKey, preferredAuthType), so not fully complete.

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 'Get Post analytics' as the core purpose, which is a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from other analytics tools like x_api_get_media_analytics or x_api_get_insights_historical, but the name and description make the target clear. The 'Use when' section is somewhat tautological but the overall context resolves ambiguity.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, including specific alternatives like x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration. It also lists recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools, offering clear direction on when to invoke this tool versus others.

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