Get post results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces this ('This tool only reads'). It adds real non-annotation behavior: null semantics (unreported vs never-reported), the rule not to sum across networks, and the ordering of results. Missing pagination/result-size limits keeps it from a 5.

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?

Return shape, usage trigger, null-handling rules and read-only note are all front-loaded and each sentence carries information an agent would otherwise guess wrong on. No filler or restated title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned metrics, row granularity, ordering, and null meaning. For a one-parameter read tool this covers everything needed to call and interpret results correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single enum-typed 'days' parameter defaulting to 30, so the schema already does the work. The description mirrors the 7/30/90 window but adds no syntax or default-behavior detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the numbers (impressions, likes, comments, shares) for posts published in the last 7, 30 or 90 days'), plus granularity (one row per post and channel) and ordering (newest post first). The siblings (create_draft_post, list_scheduled_posts) are clearly different operations, so an agent can route unambiguously.

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?

Explicit trigger is given: 'Use it when the user asks how posts performed or which post did best.' No explicit when-not or named alternative, but the sibling set (drafting, scheduled posts) makes the boundary obvious enough. Slightly short of a 5, which would name the alternative for scheduled/future posts.

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