get_content_performance_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what data or return structure to expect, whether any side effects exist, or any limitations. The simple phrase 'comprehensive report' gives no insight into cost, permissions, or output format, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 short sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, but the use of 'comprehensive' is somewhat generic and could be more specific. It earns points for brevity but is not fully informative.

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 and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining what the report includes and how it behaves. It merely says 'comprehensive,' which is vague. Given the tool's apparent complexity (multiple optional parameters, likely aggregated data), the description is incomplete and leaves the agent unclear about return values, time periods, and report scope.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions (coverage 100%), including enums for period and report_type, and descriptions for metrics and include_comparisons. The tool description itself adds no parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting. No parameter is left unexplained.

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 'Comprehensive performance report across all content' clearly indicates the tool produces a performance report and specifies the scope ('across all content'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like thread-specific insights. The verb is implicit in the tool name, but the resource and scope are clear. It lacks explicit mention of the reporting granularity or metrics, but remains understandable.

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 such as get_my_insights or get_engagement_trends. There are no stated use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings. The appropriate context must be inferred solely from the tool name and generic wording.

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