Get post traffic

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is the return semantics: the per-source breakdown, share-of-views and free/paid subscriber attribution, plus the empty-list edge case for unread posts. It does not state whether a time window applies or whether results are paginated.

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?

Front-loaded one-liner stating the resource, then a detail sentence, then an edge-case sentence. The enumeration of source types and metrics is dense but earns its place; no filler or restated title.

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 correctly takes on responsibility for describing the return shape and the empty-result case. The main gap is the absence of any time-range scoping note, which matters for a stats 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 coverage is 100% and the single post_id parameter is documented as coming from list_posts, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 and resource — retrieves the Traffic part of a post's stats — and enumerates what that covers (sources, categories, devices, views, subscriber conversions). It distinguishes itself implicitly from get_post_stats by naming the sub-section, but never names that sibling outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Returns the Traffic part of a post's stats' suggests get_post_stats is the broader call, and the empty-list note hints at when results may be barren. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_post_stats or list_traffic_sources.

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