Get Content Statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is destructive, any permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too minimal for full 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key information, and contains no extraneous words. It is optimally concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should provide context on what the output looks like (e.g., what type of statistics, format). It does not, leaving the agent without information on how to interpret the result. The description is incomplete for a practical usage scenario.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (accountId and contentId) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('engagement statistics/insights') and specifies it's for a piece of content. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like repliz_get_content and repliz_get_content_comments, though no explicit differentiation is provided.

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, no context about prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without any usage recommendations.

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