Engagement summary

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already provide. The line 'CAPABILITY: `read` — side-effect-free' merely restates the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, without adding context such as output format, pagination, or access requirements.

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 the key information. However, the 'CAPABILITY: read' line is redundant with the annotations and does not earn its place, slightly reducing the score from a perfect 5.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description gives a basic idea but lacks specificity about what 'engagement metrics' include (e.g., likes, shares, reach), time periods, or aggregation granularity. It is minimally viable but leaves room for interpretation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuous). The description is not required to explain parameters since there are none, earning a baseline score of 4.

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 identifies the resource as 'Aggregated engagement metrics for the active org,' which distinguishes it from siblings like get_engagement_by_tag and get_post_metrics by emphasizing org-level aggregation. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns,' relying on the tool name to convey the action.

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. It only states the scope ('for the active org'), but does not mention related tools like get_engagement_by_tag or get_post_metrics, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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