get_post_impressions_paid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool fetches data (implying read-only) and describes the output format, but lacks critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time/historical. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with three short sentences that directly state the action, input, and output without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information 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?

Given the complexity (a data-fetching tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on authentication, error handling, data freshness, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 output format, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic type. It doesn't explain what a 'post_id' is, its format, or where to find it, leaving gaps that the schema alone doesn't cover. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides minimal structure.

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 ('paid impressions of a post'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_post_impressions' or 'get_post_impressions_organic'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools (e.g., 'get_post_insights' might also provide impression data), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 siblings like 'get_post_impressions', 'get_post_impressions_organic', and 'get_post_insights', there's no indication of when paid impressions are needed or how this differs from other impression-related tools, leaving usage unclear.

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