Get post stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the error behavior for unpublished posts and the fact that figures are eventually-consistent and keep growing for days after a send.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler. The leading metric list is useful but slightly awkward as an opener since the actual framing sentence follows it; otherwise well ordered, ending with the important staleness caveat.

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, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned fields and clarifying their scope (email vs web views, likes as reactions). It also covers the failure mode. Only the return structure/format is left unstated, which is minor.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself ties post_id to list_posts. The description adds only the implicit constraint that the referenced post must be published, but gives no format hints or extra meaning for post_id 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+resource ('Returns the engagement numbers of one published post') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (recipients, opens, open rate, views, likes, restacks, subscribers gained). The scope qualifier 'one published post' distinguishes it from aggregate siblings like get_publication_stats and get_daily_stats.

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?

It gives one useful usage condition — a draft or scheduled post returns an error, so only published posts qualify — plus the 'check again later' guidance for growing numbers. However, it never addresses the closest alternatives (get_post_engagement, get_post_traffic) which sound nearly identical, leaving the agent to guess which per-post metric tool to pick.

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