Get analytics

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false, the description discloses material behavior: results are 'cut to what the plan keeps', reach exists only 'where the platform shares it', best-time is normalized 'against each channel's usual', and missing data is explained in notes. These coverage/completeness caveats are exactly the context annotations cannot carry; only rate limits or cost hints are absent.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause and the long metric enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by describing a distinct return element. It is on the heavy side for a single-parameter read tool, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the metric groups plus the 'notes' field that explains gaps. Time zone, normalization basis, and the days window are all covered; only fine-grained response shape (e.g. per-channel nesting) is left unstated.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only encodes allowed constants, so the description must compensate — and it does, stating the four accepted values, the default of 30, and the plan-based truncation of the window. It adds real meaning over the bare anyOf/const list, though nothing about how the window is anchored (e.g. calendar days vs rolling).

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 names a specific verb (get the numbers the Analytics screen shows) and then enumerates the exact metrics returned: channel followers and change, posts/likes/comments as counts and rates, reach where available, top posts with text and link, and best weekday/hour. That level of content specificity effectively separates it from siblings like postfjord_plan_metrics or postfjord_get_weekly_signals even though those are not named.

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?

'Use it to answer what performed and to plan posts like the ones that did' gives a clear, concrete usage context rather than leaving intent implicit. It does not exclude alternatives or state when another analytics-ish sibling should be preferred, so it stops short of a 5.

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