get_enhanced_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It simply lists the type of analytics returned and does not mention potential side effects, data aggregation behavior, permissions/rate limits, or output structure. The read-only nature is implicit but not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral context is given.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it contains no fluff. It is concise and easy to parse, though the brevity sacrifices valuable detail.

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 tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the output format, how this tool differs from the many overlapping analytics siblings, or any context about when to invoke it. The one-line description leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes some metric names (views, clicks, shares, demographics) already listed in the schema's 'metrics' and 'breakdown' fields, but adds no new meaning or contextual guidance about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('advanced analytics'), along with concrete examples of returned data (views, clicks, shares, demographics). It is clear enough but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling analytics tools like get_my_insights or get_audience_demographics, so it lacks the dismissal level of a 5.

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 the many analytics-related sibling tools (e.g., get_follower_growth_analytics, get_engagement_trends). There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to guess.

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