get_post_engaged_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches data and outputs a dict, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to ensure safe and effective use.

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 concise and front-loaded, with three short sentences that cover purpose, input, and output without unnecessary details. However, the lack of guidance or behavioral context means it could be more informative while remaining efficient.

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?

Given the complexity of engagement metrics and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'engaged users' entails, how the count is derived, or the structure of the output dict, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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 description mentions the input parameter 'post_id' and its type, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format, examples, constraints). Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('number of engaged users'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_post_reactions_like_total' or 'get_post_share_count', which also measure engagement metrics, so it misses the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on engagement metrics (e.g., 'get_number_of_likes', 'get_post_share_count'), there's no indication of what 'engaged users' means or how it differs, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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