get_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an authentication requirement and hints at the output ('Shows which tweets performed best'), but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention rate limits, or detail any side effects. The 'Get' verb implies a safe read, but it is not explicitly confirmed.

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 three concise sentences: a clear purpose statement, an elaboration of what it shows, and a necessary authentication note. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the auth requirement, and the type of results. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, but that is captured under usage guidelines. Overall, it is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 only parameter (days) is fully described in the input schema with 'Number of days to analyze (default 7)', achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it does not go beyond the schema.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get engagement analytics on your recent tweets.' It further elaborates with 'Shows which tweets performed best, what's working, and trends,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_timeline or get_mentions by focusing on performance analytics rather than raw content.

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 implies usage context by focusing on recent tweets and engagement analytics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar siblings like analyze_account. It does provide a prerequisite ('Requires a ShipPost API key'), but this is an operational requirement rather than guidance on tool selection.

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