get_follower_growth_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Track' implies a read-only operation, but no details are provided about return format, data source, or limitations. Neither the safety profile nor behavioral traits (e.g., projections are estimates) are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity sacrifices needed detail. Every word counts, but the message could be more informative without adding bulk.

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 is relatively simple, but the absence of an output schema means the description must explain what is returned. It does not state whether the result is a time series, a summary, or something else, leaving significant gaps for an analytics tool.

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 clear descriptions for period and include_projections. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description names a specific resource (follower growth) and action (track), and the word 'projections' hints at unique functionality. However, 'track' is vague and the description doesn't specify what output is produced (e.g., counts, changes over time), limiting differentiation from siblings like get_engagement_trends.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention period or include_projections, nor contrast with other analytics tools like get_audience_demographics or get_engagement_trends.

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