get_post_impressions_unique

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Fetch') and output format ('dict with unique impression count'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 brief sentences that directly state the purpose, input, and output without any wasted words. Each 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely interacts with an API. It misses details on authentication, error cases, return structure beyond 'dict', and how 'unique impressions' are defined (e.g., per user, per session). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 specifies the input parameter ('post_id (str)') and its type, adding clarity beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's semantics (e.g., format of post_id, where to find it) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity despite compensating for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('unique impressions of a post'), distinguishing it from similar siblings like 'get_post_impressions' (which likely returns total impressions). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, such as 'get_post_impressions_organic' or 'get_post_impressions_paid', leaving some ambiguity in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_post_impressions' or other impression-related tools. The description implies usage for unique impressions but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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